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

Re: [dinosaur] Ornithoscelida re-examined, and re-re-examined



Why is the space precious?  Both letters end with at least half an empty page.  


Sent from Outlook




From: dinosaur-l-request@usc.edu <dinosaur-l-request@usc.edu> on behalf of David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
Sent: November 1, 2017 3:47 PM
To: dinosaur-l@usc.edu
Subject: Re: [dinosaur] Ornithoscelida re-examined, and re-re-examined
 
The reply contains this:

"Following scrutiny of the character data underpinning our phylogeny1, Langer et al.2 identify numerous disagreements in terms of character scoring and suggest changing approximately 2,500 scorings, around 10% of the character data. This extensive re-scoring results in recovery of the ‘traditional’ topology, although with less resolution and very weak support; their result is statistically indistinguishable from the possibility that our topology provides a better explanation of the data. This weak support, despite these extensive changes, suggests that the ‘traditional’ tree struggles to account for many character distributions."

Uh, it does. But it also suggests that the Ornithoscelida tree struggles just as much, indeed a little bit _more_, to account for many character distributions. That sentence was a waste of precious space.