Re: Pteromimus and pterosaur origins

[David Peters <davidpeters@att.net>]

Here's the problem with Atanassov's phylogeny. In his own words:

>>A total of sixteen terminal taxa are used in the analysis of  
Archosauromorpha,
including the tw o new reptiles Pteromimus and Procoelosaurus:  
Lepidosauromorpha
(outgroup); Rhynchosauria; Prolacertiformes; Proterosuchidae;  
Erythrosuchidae;
Proterochampsidae; Euparkeria. Parasuchia; Suchia; Omithosuchidae;  
Lagosuchus;
Dinosauria; Scleromochlus; and Pterosauria,<<

Note: only three generic taxa are represented here.  All the rest are  
suprageneric. Which leaves open the question, which specimens/genera  
served as poster child for each of the suprageneric taxa?   
Considering the broad range of morphologies present in each clade,  
anything can happen.

Atanassov referenced Peters 2000, so why he chose not to include  
Longisquama, Sharovipteryx and the others can only be attributed to  
not being able to personally observe them.

There is also the question of cladistic _analysis_, which MacClade is  
great at. After thePAUP* tree(s) is(are) created it's time to  
evaluate it(them). MacClade is great at showing exceptions and  
mistakes in coding.

For instance, note that all of the sister and predecessor taxa of  
pterosaurs in Atanassov's phylogeny have a vestigial or absent pedal  
digit V. Pterosaurs don't. That's a red flag that should tell any  
reasonable person, evolution doesn't work that way and it's time to  
look for more parsimonious sister taxa. The same for manual digit IV.  
And there's a long list that follows. Anyone who claims that  
pterosaurs 'suddenly appeared' in the fossil record with no sister  
taxa demonstrating a gradual acquisition of characters has their  
blinders on. The data is freely available.

Those that test, discover.

David Peters
davidpeters@att.net