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

Re: [dinosaur] Traditional Saurischia weakly supported over proposed Ornithoscelida

Some additional news items with interviews:



Virus-free. www.avg.com

On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Ben Creisler <bcreisler@gmail.com> wrote:
Also, the reply (again, behind a pay wall):

Baron et al. reply
Matthew G. Baron, David B. Norman & Paul M. Barrett (2017)
Nature 551, E4âE5 (02 November 2017)Â
doi: 10.1038/nature24012

On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Ben Creisler <bcreisler@gmail.com> wrote:

Ben Creisler

A new paper:

Max C. Langer, MartÃn D. Ezcurra, Oliver W. M. Rauhut, Michael J. Benton, Fabien Knoll, Blair W. McPhee, Fernando E. Novas, Diego Pol & Stephen L. Brusatte (2017)
Untangling the dinosaur family tree.
Nature 551, E1âE3 (02 November 2017)Â

The article itself is behind a pay wall but the supplementary material is free:

From the supp:

"...[O]ur dataset does not provide statistically significant support for Saurischia over Ornithoscelida, even though Saurischia is a more parsimonious explanation of our data.Â


Finally, the analysis of our modified matrix (without the addition of new taxa, such that only the taxon sample of Baron et al. [2017] is analyzed) resulted in >500,000 MPTs of 1,708 steps (CI: 0.3085, RI: 0.6792), the strict consensus of which (Fig. S2a) also shows a traditional monophyletic Saurischia. In this case, three additional steps are necessary to recover Ornithoscelida..."



Time to rewrite the dinosaur textbooks? Not quite yet

Virus-free. www.avg.com