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

Re: Notarium question

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.

Isn't it usual for a query to receive a response?

 > You're missing the point: When is it an official notarium? And when
 > is it not?

That I don't know, and didn't try to answer.  I was responding the
part of your post that was a query about how to score cladistic

 > > (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.

Are you suggesting that progressive vertebral fusion through ontogeny
is restricted to archosaurs?  That would be new information for me.

 _/|_    ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor    <mike@indexdata.com>    http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "This machine is a piece of GAGH! I need dual 600MHz Pentium
         processors if I am to do battle with this code!" -- Klingon
         Programming Mantra