[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Pteromimus and pterosaur origins
Here's the problem with Atanassov's phylogeny. In his own words:
>>A total of sixteen terminal taxa are used in the analysis of
including the tw o new reptiles Pteromimus and Procoelosaurus:
(outgroup); Rhynchosauria; Prolacertiformes; Proterosuchidae;
Proterochampsidae; Euparkeria. Parasuchia; Suchia; Omithosuchidae;
Dinosauria; Scleromochlus; and Pterosauria,<<
Note: only three generic taxa are represented here. All the rest are
suprageneric. Which leaves open the question, which specimens/genera
served as poster child for each of the suprageneric taxa?
Considering the broad range of morphologies present in each clade,
anything can happen.
Atanassov referenced Peters 2000, so why he chose not to include
Longisquama, Sharovipteryx and the others can only be attributed to
not being able to personally observe them.
There is also the question of cladistic _analysis_, which MacClade is
great at. After thePAUP* tree(s) is(are) created it's time to
evaluate it(them). MacClade is great at showing exceptions and
mistakes in coding.
For instance, note that all of the sister and predecessor taxa of
pterosaurs in Atanassov's phylogeny have a vestigial or absent pedal
digit V. Pterosaurs don't. That's a red flag that should tell any
reasonable person, evolution doesn't work that way and it's time to
look for more parsimonious sister taxa. The same for manual digit IV.
And there's a long list that follows. Anyone who claims that
pterosaurs 'suddenly appeared' in the fossil record with no sister
taxa demonstrating a gradual acquisition of characters has their
blinders on. The data is freely available.
Those that test, discover.