[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Prolacertiformes and Protorosauria
Oh, and, we've had a private conversation about your manuscript and its
peer-review where I told you exactly what I've now told you again. Don't you
remember that either?
I can't find the comment anymore where you say that if you can make an
analysis of amniote phylogeny in extremely little time, then so can I.
Anyway, my point is that _you can't_. Finding out which characters are
correlated is _necessary_, and it's work you simply didn't do. Finding out
which characters should be ordered in which ways is _necessary_, and again
it's work you simply didn't do. Finding out if you've correctly interpreted
the illustrations in the literature is _necessary_, and... in an offlist
message you once showed me a mistake you made that's so embarrassing I
withhold it here; it had to do with the position of the pterygoids. The way
you manage to do it so quickly is to do it extremely sloppily. Yes, I could
do that; you're right that far. There'd just not be any point in doing it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Peters" <email@example.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 3:05 PM
Yes, there is some intuition that goes into judging results.
But, really, there shouldn't be.
ie. placing mesosaurs with pareiasaurs = bad.
How close to pareiasaurs? If you put 20 million years between their common
ancestor and the first pareiasaur, I don't see a problem. (Especially not if
procolophonoids, lanthanosuchids, millerettids etc. etc. are closer to the
pareiasaurs than the mesosaurs are.)
More importantly, there is some experience at work here too. Yes, I've
done the larger, more inclusive study, that indicates the breaks are real
and taxon exclusion is the culprit.
That's your analysis, not your experience. Your result, not you. :-)