Re: Kerberosaurus manakini

["Jonathan R. Wagner" <jonathan.r.wagner@mail.utexas.edu>]

Ken Carpenter wrote:

> what I find disturbing this the "need" some people have of doing a
cladistic
> analysis of every new specimen/taxa when the material clearly too
fragmentary
> /incomplete to produce anything meaningful. The Kerberosaurus is a case in
point.

Here here!

Phylogenetics is a useful tool, but is not the sine quod non of systematic
paleontology. Unless a new specimen, or a redescribed specimen, suggests a
novel phylogenetic hypothesis that figures prominently in the paper, authors
should not be compelled produce a tree. There should be a place in this
science for a good old-fashioned comparison and discussion. Very often, an
informed, intelligent description and comparison says as much as, often more
than, a phylogenetic analysis. The latter rarely furnishes any insight the
former lacks.

 I guess the whole systematics-should-be-done-by-everyone banner seemed like
a good idea back when "old guard" systematics was seen as an art practiced
by the guardians of "special knowledge" about their taxon of interest. It
seems to me, however, that there is a darned good reason why we used to have
specialists, a reason that had little to do with special knowledge: it is
darned hard to get to know a taxon, especially to understand its morphology
well enough to produce a good, thorough phylogenetic analysis. It is
arguably harder to become sufficiently comfortable with morphological
systematics that you can clearly understand and explain your methodology.
Cladistics forces the specialist to justify his conclusions in a
reproducible manner rather than relying on his authority; it does not
represent a means by which "any yokel off the street can do phylogenetics."

My current advisor would probably say that he would rather see a poorly done
analysis with a tree than no analysis at all. I feel much the opposite. I'd
rather see a good analysis without a tree, or a description with little
analysis, or a well-thought out tree with no formal analysis, than a poor
analysis and a tree.

Wagner

P.S. I would take exception to the implication that fragmentary material
cannot produce meaningful results, but from HP Carpenter's bibliography, I
think I would be taking his remarks out of context. Obviously he has no
problem with incomplete material!

Jonathan R. Wagner
2625-B Alcott Lane
Austin, TX 78748