[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.
http://theropoddatabase.blogspot.com/2012/06/why-david-peters-analysis-sucks.html

The second takes on just how few characters he includes.
http://theropoddatabase.blogspot.com/2012/06/why-doesnt-peters-find-dinosauria-or.html

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.

Mickey Mortimer