Re: Sobral and Langer 2008 (was pteros have lift-off)

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> Can you provide some references to your published articles? I'd be 
> interested to read them.

:-° <innocent whistling>

> > As in any taxa, when you include the right
> > candidates, the mystery becomes less of a mystery.
>
> How do you determine the 'right' candidates to include in the first place?

You don't. You "simply" make a complete phylogenetic analysis of (for bats) 
placentals, or (for pterosaurs) archosauromorphs or even amniotes as a 
whole. Scare quotes because that's a nice topic for a PhD thesis (or two if 
you want to see all the fossils yourself before coding them).

Namesake Peters has made an amniote analysis that got submitted to a 
journal, was sent out for peer-review, and was rejected long ago (long 
before we on this list explained to him how to prepare a data matrix for a 
phylogenetic, as opposed to phenetic, analysis). The data matrix contained 
lots of misinterpretations of line drawings in the literature, correlated 
characters, and so on; unsurprisingly, the resulting cladogram contained 
lots of, let's say, surprises. I don't know what has happened to that matrix 
since then, though.