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

Re: FEATHERED THEROPODS



At 05:25 PM 9/27/98 -0400, Joshua Smith wrote:
>       Although, let me be a jerk and beat the horse a little bit and 
>point out that you are using phylogeny and parsimony to gain insight into 
>the possibility of integument in other groups that are HYPOTHESIZED 
>relatives.  Just because our cladograms say something is related, doesn't 
>mean it is.  In support of this, I refer you to the theropod mud-slinging
>match (oh, I mean "symposium") in Pittsburg in 1995.

   Just to put it another way, somewhere on my website (I'm too lazy to look
it up right now) is the point that (paraphrasing from memory) a cladogram is
a hypothesis of phylogeny.  Neither should they be dismissed as fancy,
however, as they've supposed (that word put in for the benefit of
Dinogeorge) to have been formed by a rigorous scientific analysis.

** Dinosauria On-Line. Home of THE DINOSTORE ** "Those who trade a        **
** (Dino stuff for sale), Jeff's Journal of  ** little freedom for a      **
** Dinosaur Paleontology, Jeff's Dinosaur    ** little security will soon **
** Picture Gallery, and The DOL Dinosaur     ** find they have none of    **
** Omnipedia. http://www.dinosauria.com      ** either." -- Jeff Poling   **
*************** The official website of the new millennium! ****************