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

RE: Koreanosaurus, new burrowing ornithopod [Meta]





----------------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 00:08:56 -0700
> From: tijawi@yahoo.com
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> CC: tijawi@yahoo.com
> Subject: RE: Koreanosaurus, new burrowing ornithopod [Meta]
>
>
> Anthony Docimo wrote:
>
>
> > > Unless _Koreanosaurus_ is included in a phylogenetic
> > analysis, then any discussion of its relationships is just
> > hand-waving.
> >
> > on the contrary. if that were true, then nobody here
> > would be calling it an ornithopod.
>
>
> I'm only calling it an ornithopod because the paper calls it an ornithopod.
 
 this is actually my point I'm making.
 
 You and I call it an ornithopod because the paper (and by extension its 
authors) call it an ornithopod.  And presumably the authors, having studied the 
fossil more than anyone else to date, would be the best-placed to take a stab 
at what the fossil is of.
 
But if they (or we) can't make guesses as to what it is (until a complete 
cladogram is made*), then we shouldn't be calling it an ornithopod.
 
 
 
 
* = and even then, there will be people saying "that's a bad cladogram, because 
you forgot these genera."
 
 
> > so why can we talk about what it may be similar to, but
> > the discoverers/describers can't?
>
> Well, the describers provide a cladogram that shows _Koreanosaurus_ as sister 
> taxon to _Orodromeus_ within the Ornithopoda. I'm u
> n into a cladogram unless the relationships of the taxon have actually been 
> tested. Yeah, _Koreanosaurus_ is probably a true ornithopod, and it might 
> indeed be most closely related to _Orodromeus_ and/or _Oryctodromeus_. But 
> only taxa that have been plugged into the matrix should be shown in a 
> cladogram. Otherwise it's misleading.
 
wait....so, you're upset that they drew a picture about who _Koreanosaurus_ may 
be related to?  that...makes no sense. (you've already said that they listed 
the features which led them to their statement of who it may be related to - so 
how does that differ from a cladogram?)
 
side note:  then again, I may be coming at this wrong - all the cladograms I've 
seen, both in dino&pterosaur books, as well as _Gaining Ground_ by Dr. Clack, 
each split in the cladogram is accompanied by what feature is lost/gained at 
each consecutive step in the cladogram.