[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" <davidpeters@att.net>
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. :-)