[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Notarium question




On Feb 13, 2009, at 3:22 AM, Mike Taylor wrote:

David Peters writes:
Question is, when is it valid to call the structure a notarium? What
Rubicon must be crossed?

  Is there such a thing as a pre-notarium? or proto-notarium?

And if such a structure evolved more than once, should we
differentiate these? Should we score them differently?

If you score them differently on the assumption that they are separate apomorphies, then you're assuming what you're setting out to prove.

---------------

It's a query, Mike. Not a statement of intention. You're missing the point: When is it an official notarium? And when is it not?

---------------

Just score the morphology, and let the cladistics program sort out
what is the most parsimonious optimisation of the characters.

(But wouldn't notarium fusion by very ontogenetically dependent
anyway?)

---------------

Only if pterosaurs were archosaurs. Unfortunately, no one can come up with a genus-based archosaur sister taxon that isn't seriously flawed. and out of the running.

Maisano 2004 reports that you can throw out the old rules if pterosaurs are not archosaurs.



---------------

_/|_ ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <mike@indexdata.com> http:// www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "You try to tell foreigners how big it is, but if they haven't
experienced it, they won't get it." -- Freddie Ljungberg
(Swedish), on the FA Cup.



David Peters davidpeters@att.net