Being "scientific" about segnosaurs

["Ken Kinman" <kinman@hotmail.com>]

Dear All,
    I certainly hope Jaime understands that I wasn't dismissing his views 
as being irrelevant.  I am simply pointing out that a purely cladistic 
approach is not the only scientific way to analyze problems of phylogeny.  I 
feel obligated to defend eclecticism against the charge that it is 
unscientific.
     I can certainly understand why people get upset with Feduccia's 
approach (which I regard as extreme eclecticism).  But I am forming a 
falsifiable hypothesis of coelurosaurian phylogeny that will be testable.  
If it fails scientific scrutiny, I'll admit it and accept it.  But please 
don't brand it as unscientific just because it challenges the holophyly of 
"enigmosauria".  This is very serious stuff, and I wouldn't be sticking my 
neck out like this if I didn't think it was important.  If I'm wrong, and 
"enigmosauria" is holophyletic, so be it.  Until then, I will be seriously 
considering the possibility that "enigmosauria" is based on homoplasies and 
is probably paraphyletic.  It's a very tricky part of the coelurosaur tree, 
and am I just pursuing the problem in a more eclectic manner.  This is not 
going to be easy, so I've got to get back to work.  Especially exploring how 
the convex coracoid glenoid may help support my alternative topology.
             -----  Cheers,  Ken


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.