[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

 Two: Sobral and Langer 2008.

That's not a phylogenetic analysis, it's a supertree. It is not based on a data matrix; it's a sort of consensus tree over published trees.

 Also, please be my guest and list the three genus-based taxa that
 lead progressively closer to pterosaurs within the archosaurs as
 determined by the best study out there.


I feel like I'm caught in a time loop. Why do you keep making this completely silly assumption about both the fossil record and the way taxa diversify?

Why do you act as if "genus-based" even meant anything!?!

 I note that proterochampsids,
 erythrosuchids and proterosuchids keep making these lists, and I hope
 you can explain how you get pterosaurs to emerge from any of these.

Again I feel like I'm caught in a time loop. When will you finally understand the difference between "sister taxon" and "ancestor", the difference between "sister" and "mother"?

Yes, I am angry, thanks for asking. I've been explaining this issue again and again for five years now.

 Also, please list how those are more parsimonious versus a
 Sharovipteryx. Bring it on, Jaime. Here's your chance to shine.

That would have to involve him doing a phylogenetic analysis of all of Diapsida (at the very least). That's a bit much to ask. Jaime won't shine anytime soon.

(No, using just the crown group of Diapsida wouldn't be enough, because for a lot of extinct diapsids it's not clear whether they're just inside or just outside the crown group. That would need to be determined at the same time.)

 No one should test my dataset. If they find fault, as Hone & Benton
 did, then we have another sort of problem.

Scroll down to issue 3.

"No one should test my dataset". What a ridiculous, embarrassing thing for a scientist to say. <facepalm>