[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: justification for excluding lagerpetids and/or pterosaurs from a phylogenetic analysis of the Archosauria
Everyone else's? Like who? Who includes generic pterosaurs and lepidosaurs or
fenestrasaurs in analysis?
When you one that includes all the candidates we've been discussing, let me
I'm keenly interested.
When you do, that will be science. Exclusion (without an overarching study that
sets the record straight) = politics.
On Mar 5, 2010, at 5:45 PM, Jaime Headden wrote:
> That's a problem with your version of the idea that pterosaurs are
> lepidosaurs: It's a belief founded on your analyses versus everyone else's.
> This isn't parsimony, and this isn't science.
> Jaime A. Headden
> "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
> "Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn
> from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent
> disinclination to do so." --- Douglas Adams (Last Chance to See)
> "Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
> different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
> has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
> his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion
>> Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 17:06:10 -0600
>> From: email@example.com
>> To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
>> Subject: Re: justification for excluding lagerpetids and/or pterosaurs from
>> a phylogenetic analysis of the Archosauria
>>> Echoing Tim: I fail to see how this justifies the exclusion of lagerpetids
>>> and/or pterosaurs from a phylogenetic analysis of Archosauria. The fact
>>> that some authors find pterosaurs to fall outside of Archosauria does not
>>> mean that pterosaurs should be excluded from archosaurian analyses, any
>>> more than the papers finding pterosaurs to fall within archosaurs indicate
>>> that you should exclude them from your lepidosaurian tree. Pterosaurs might
>>> not be archosaurs - that does not mean that they cannot be included in an
>>> analysis looking at Archosaurian relationships. If I produced a tree
>>> tomorrow that found snakes outside of lepidosauria, then is every
>>> subsequent worker suddenly obligated to exclude snakes from every future
>>> lepidosaurian analysis?
>> Fine. Keep them in. They don't contribute one iota to a better understanding
>> of the origin of dinosaurs, unfortunately. If they did, I'd be on your side.
> Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.