RE: The validity of cladograms (was Re: giant birds)

[Toby White <mwhite@houston.rr.com>]

By coincidence, I just went through this exercise for the Sauropods, comparing 
every sauropod cladogram I could find and paring each one down to just a few 
indicator species for purposes of comparison.  You can see the results under 
the link to SAUROPOD NOTES in the "Sauropoda" entry.  The resemblances far 
outweigh the differences.

  --Toby White

Vertebrate Notes at
http://www.dinodata.net
[The back door address is http://www.dinodata.net/toby/notes/sauropoda.html]

On Monday, November 15, 1999 7:32 AM, Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. 
[SMTP:tholtz@geol.umd.edu] wrote:

> In fact, there is substantial congruence between the alternatives proposed
> by various authors in (my poster example) coelurosaurs or in (a new example)
> sauropods.  Most of the major groupings are consitently found by different
> workers.  The differences tend to concern a smaller fraction of "problem
> children" taxa (the various euhelopodids/mamenchisaurids among sauropods,
> troodontids among theropods, etc.) which make the trees look different from
> each other.