[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

David Peters wrote:
> 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 
> know.
> I'm keenly interested.
> When you do, that will be science. Exclusion (without an overarching study 
> that sets the record straight) = politics.

Peter, what do you actually have: a hypothesis or a conclusion? In
response to Nesbitt et al.'s (2010) paper on *Asilisaurus kongwe* you
stated that you are "[...] seeing problems with the inclusion of basal
taxa (pterosaurs, Lagerpeton) that are unrelated to the lineage of
dinosaurs". They _are_ unrelated or just _may be_? If your hypothesis
is that they _may be_ unrelated to the lineage of dinosaurs (you
_really_ can't be sure that they _are_; not based on available data),
you shouldn't be that radical.

Daniel Madzia
web: www.wildprehistory.org
mail: daniel.madzia@gmail.com
skype: danielmadzia