R: Segnosaurs ejected from AVES

["calzola" <calzola@iol.it>]

It's not a matter of getting upset or not; Jaime just pointed out how what
you've done is , given the general knowledge about "segnosaurs"'
relationships, essentially unscientific. Now, one can get upset  or just
comment on your decision without even a slight emotional change, BUT THIS IS
NOT, IN ANY WAY, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING; your reaction is _like_  you'd
said:<< ehi, after all it's just a little thing and what you've just told me
about the unscientific nature of my position, is just...irrelevant>>
This is a rather upsetting behavior itself : Jaime's (and others' ) email
has been answered, probably (surely, IMO) because his opinion is regarded
(deservedly) as relevant; other emails (mine included, which, albeit showing
an imperfect english, reflected the same position with quite similar
arguments) have been ignored; now, I'm not being victimistic, because I
actually don't care too much about my emails being answered or not by
anyone, but I think this behaviour shows some superficiality  1)about
common, scientifically achieved, knowledge and  2)about  personal opinion
differing from your own, since none of our points have been discussed, but
just dismissed(even if in a seemingly polite way).

Saying just that "strictly cladistic" science is probably not the best way
,needs(to be considered by others) some explanation as to how a different
way of proceeding should work. Personal-unsupported- opinions may be
interesting , but are not science and should not be used against suppoprted
ones.

enough..

Filippo Calzolari

----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Kinman <kinman@hotmail.com>
To: <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 4:55 AM
Subject: Re: Segnosaurs ejected from AVES


>      To tell you truth Jaime, one reason I don't like the name Maniraptora
> for the whole group is that most birds don't go around "manuraptoring"
their
> food.  And it is not apomorphy-based, so not exactly equivalent in any
case.
>   Anyway, don't get too upset too fast, because this is an example of the
> "real world" of eclecticism in action.  You might even end up finding that
a
> little eclecticism is advantageous in the end.  It might be a little
> uncomfortable, but often "no pain means no gain".  Give it a chance.
>       I would be interested to know how Beipiaosaurus would be coded with
> your six semilunate characteristics.  It's possible that segnosaurs (sans
> Beipiaosaurus) split off first, and that Beipiaosaurus then split off
> between them and the rest of the "true" semilunate forms.  In other words,
> Segnosauriformes sensu lato could be paraphyletic, and perhaps
Beipaiosaurus
> represents the transition to the "true semilunate".
>       I would also be interested to know if Beipiaosaurus had a convex
> coracoid glenoid, as that transition seems to be occurring around the same
> time.  So don't get too upset, because I think eclecticists and cladists
can
> learn from each other when they cooperate.  I just don't think "strictly
> cladistic" science is the only best way to discover true phylogenies.
This
> is a great experiment, and we might all learn something.
>          ------ Cheers,  Ken
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
>