[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Ceratosauria vs. Neotheropoda?

Michael Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.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 <mike@indexdata.com> 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.