[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Blogging SVP
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Blogging SVP
- From: Tim Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 15:31:46 +1100
- In-reply-to: <CAFGhNbNxrvxeNsPnFZSLOirefOsCnp6vKrJWOi-cHnXpZyGbKA@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <DEB77C65357E0E459F13EC8BAAB02CBC019F7E5EA700@EXC-MBX1.cfs.le.ac.uk> <email@example.com>
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu
Mike Keesey <email@example.com> wrote:
> Dave Peters called it!
I'll put that down to luck. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. ;-)
> (Well, as near as I can make it out, he puts
> some other things closer to bats, like colugos and pen-tailed
> treeshrews[!] and African palm civets[!!!], but....)
But indeed. I can readily believe that arctocyonids and
phenacodontids are paraphyletic (or even polyphyletic). Not crown
Scandentia or Carnivora though.
> It involved an arbitrary character-based distance metric that also
> revived Elosaurus. (No less arbitrary than the usual decision,
Unless _A. ajax_, _A. excelsus_, _A. louisae_, and _A.parvus_ do NOT
form a monophyletic group to the exclusion of other diplodocids, there
doesn't seem any point to reviving _Elosaurus_ - or _Brontosaurus.