[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Last Dinosaur of 2011
- To: Andy Farke <email@example.com>, Dinosaur Mailing List <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: Last Dinosaur of 2011
- From: Jaime Headden <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 22:58:41 -0700
- Authentication-results: msg-ironport2.usc.edu; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <4EFF0632020000F40001777A@gw-gwia2.iso.port.ac.uk>,<email@example.com>
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu
Ah, crud, the typing goblin broke in again.
What I meant to write was that the support for the nodes was relatively low,
below 70% for most of the ceratosaurine clades, including those combining
various species. Bremer values are low, while other strongly supported nodes
are indicated with less than, say, 70% bootstrap values. These are, my
understanding tells me, largely based on the amount of material involved. This
is not necessarily a jab at *Spinops sternbergorum,* but rather at the apparent
recognition of *Rubeosaurus* for *Styracosaurus ovatus,* qualified by an
aberrant P2/P3 expression from other taxa; in *Spinops sternbergorum* at least
the material poses more material and more interesting variation that is
unlikely to belong a known *Styracosaurus* or *Centrosaurus* species, simply
because material known for those taxa tend not to express the other's
uniqueness (P1 hooks, or P2/P3 spikes, respectively)). If this condition has an
unknown or unresolved homology, or is variable, this will enforce low support
values, a result which is not aided by the lack of material.
When I started typing "These analyses are based on weak me," I was actually
trying to write two sentences and forgot to parse them separately. They are
based on limited material, and that this results in weak support in
bootstrapping (collapsing nodes) and material (which affects the Bremer numbers
as well as the bootstrap results). But I think the issue with *Rubeosaurus
ovatus* is worse, by far, than any other ceratopsian included in the analyses,
because of the brevity of material and the shaky grounds (I think) which
warrant "generic" justification.
Anyways, hopefully this clears up what I should have written.
Jaime A. Headden
The Bite Stuff (site v2)
"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
"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: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 21:03:29 +0000
> Subject: Re: Re: Last Dinosaur of 2011
> From: email@example.com
> To: Michael.OSullivan@port.ac.uk
> CC: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
> On , Michael OSullivan wrote:
> > I'm still incredibly skeptical about the validity of Spinops as a
> > distinct taxon from Centrosaurus.
> How so? We have solid autapomorphies (as outlined in the paper), we
> have two specimens from the same site with the same morphology (showing
> that the autapomorphies aren't just an individual fluke), and we have
> good growth series for Centrosaurus (and Styracosaurus) for comparison.
> None of the growth series show anything Spinops-like at all at any
> stage (or even a trend in that direction), so I think we can be
> confident it's not just a very old or very young C. apertus. Or are you
> referring to the issue of whether it should be in a separate genus? As
> outlined in the paper and associated supplemental information (and as I
> think Jaime was saying), Spinops could just as easily be closer to
> Styracosaurus or C. apertus (the best resolution was achieved when C.
> brinkmani was removed from the analysis - obviously, not the best
> solution!). Shoehorning Spinops into Centrosaurus makes a hypothesis of
> phylogeny that just isn't well-supported, and hence the new genus. I
> suppose one could put the whole mess (C. apertus, C. brinkmani, S.
> albertensis. S. sternbergorum) into Centrosaurus, but then this too is
> yet another phylogenetic hypothesis that gets exploded again in the
> next round of analysis by the next set of authors!
> Jaime - in your email I saw the sentence "These analyses are based on
> weak me," - I suspect a few words are missing there. Did you mean to
> say "weak characters"? I didn't want to put words in your mouth before
> addressing your reply!