[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Ceratosauria vs. Neotheropoda?
Michael Mortimer <email@example.com>:
> I'm no fan of BANDits and paraphyletic groups, but I don't see the big
> worry here. If they define Thecodontia paraphyletically, it will
> still indicate a limited range of taxa that can be used to test
> phylogenetic hypotheses.
and Mike Talor <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Right -- this seems like a GOOD thing. Half the reason BANDitism has
> clung on as long as it has done is its vagueness. If its proponents
> make the fatal mistake of nailing down precisely what (paraphyletic)
> group they think DID give rise to birds, they are suddenly
> that much easier to refute.
You guys are giving the BANDits far too much credit. The BANDits won't be the
ones who define Thecodontia - they don't do PT. And if somebody else does
happen to come up with a phylogenetic definition for Thecodontia, the BANDits
will simply ignore the definition. Instead, they'll simply seize upon the fact
that Thecodontia has returned as a valid grouping, and use it as extra ammo to
peddle the same vague, typology-based assertions they always have. I'd rather
consign Thecodontia to history, and keep it out of temptation's way.