[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Dromomeron and Lagerpeton query
Did you keep *Euparkeria* as the outgroup?
Yes, in keeping with Nesbitt/Irmis.
Because that's what the outgroup is in the Nesbitt et al. paper
(Irmis is the 2nd author). If you run an analysis where *Allosaurus*
and *Huehuecuetzpalli* are part of the ingroup and *Euparkeria* is
the outgroup, you have to _expect_ getting random garbage as a result.
Exactly my point. The pterosaurs are ALSO ingroup taxa and, as you
suggest, the Nesbitt/Irmis studies are "getting random garbage as a
Especially if there are no characters in the matrix that are
informative for large-scale diapsid phylogeny.
I followed Nesbitt/Irmis changing nothing but adding taxa in a TEST of
Remember: if you don't explicitly specify an outgroup, PAUP* uses
the first (topmost) OTU as the outgroup.
In this case, you'd either have to use *Huehuecuetzpalli* as the
outgroup or add a non-crown-diapsid outgroup to the matrix.
Which means you have to KNOW something about the entire spectrum of
amniote relations before embarking on making your taxon list. Not just
follow the paradigm.
The paradigm needs testing.