[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Why Peters' amniote analysis fails
Tom Holtz recently said "I will leave it for others to comment on detail, if
they wish (David? Mickey?). But in brief, Peter's analyses have a lot to be
desired in terms of anatomical interpretation, methodological approaches, etc."
in regards to his placement of Synapsida. Conveniently, I've just written two
posts on his analysis, which criticize his actual dataset as opposed to merely
his Photoshop method of seeing imaginary anatomy.
The first takes on how poorly his character states are formed.
The second takes on just how few characters he includes.
So even if Peters is right in all of his interpretations, his analysis would
fail due to having unordered characters, non-equivalent states coded together,
correlated characters without inapplicable codings, and not including the
characters that support traditional clades.