[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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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