[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
Thanks for writing.
To answer your question, the data is in the publishing cycle now, but I've also
published bits and pieces elsewhere. The problem with all current small
studies, like Nesbitt, is they have no overarching study on which to understand
large branch relations. They go with what they know and its untested.
On Mar 5, 2010, at 6:58 PM, Daniel Madzia wrote:
> 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
>> 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: firstname.lastname@example.org
> skype: danielmadzia