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

Re: [dinosaur] Dinosauria reclassification joins Ornithischia and Theropoda in Ornithoscelida



I cannot complain about a bootstrap support of 66 %. These aren't molecular 
data, and bootstrap values are well known to have a bias for too low values 
(while Bayesian posterior probabilities are biased in the other direction).

However, if we accept 66 % as on the low side, the finding that there's no 
arrangement with a bootstrap support higher than that becomes an important 
result in itself! It merely changes "everything we thought we knew is wrong" to 
"everything we thought we knew is, at best, much more weakly supported than we 
thought it was". :-)

> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. März 2017 um 09:07 Uhr
> Von: "Ruben Safir" <ruben@mrbrklyn.com>
>
> On 03/23/2017 02:40 AM, Tim Williams wrote:
> > So
> > this revised definition of Dinosauria is a sensible move, to ensure
> > that theropods and sauropods and ornithischians are always dinosaurs.
>
> That makes no sense. If the evidence is that sauropodomorphs should be
> outside of Dinosauria, then so be it. Don't massage the data to bring
> about results you want.

No data were harmed in the entire procedure. Don't confuse nomenclature with 
science; nomenclature is a set of arbitrary conventions.

Speaking of nomenclature, reference 31 of the paper is a chapter of the 
companion volume to the PhyloCode. It is cited (there and in the supp. inf.) as 
having been published in 2010. I'm on the Committee for Phylogenetic 
Nomenclature, and I can tell you that the book has still not been published; 
the chapter was most likely finished in 2010, but very few people have been 
able to see it yet.

Excluding Sauropodomorpha from Dinosauria would have had the interesting effect 
of returning to Owen, though. When Owen coined the name Dinosauria, he knew 
about *Cetiosaurus* but didn't include it in the group; as its name says, he 
thought it was a marine "reptile" (though not a plesio- or ichthyosaur).

> I think there are other problems with this study anyway, having to do
> with the computational math and software used to draw the conclusions.

Do tell. As a phylogeneticist, I'm all ears!

> Maybe this will be a wake up call.
 
For what? What is the sleep in this metaphor?