Re: What group has the most work that needs to be done?

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

>  Cerapod? But anyway, who uses Cerapoda anymore?
> You mean Neornithischia, right?

Cerapoda is a much better name. :-)

>  My comment about *Hypsilophodon* is oversimplified for a reason. We have
> detailed osteological information that shows its gradient relative to
> thyreophorans and ornithopodans.

OK. But we have similar amounts of information that shows that _lots_ of 
known species fit into this space.

> and what about tenontosaurs?

Bingo.

> The problem is getting out of a phylogenetic tree
> extensive enough to comprise them all in sufficient resolution with enough
> character sampling than some of the recent "hand claded"-sized trees
> we've been getting from Godefroit, etc. [...] this part of the 
> ornithischian tree
> is still "choppy" and "pick and choose."

That's what I mean.

>  So while we know what *Hypsilophodon foxii* is, we do not know precisely
> _where_ it is, phylogenetically speaking.

And this means we don't know all that well what it is. We don't know its 
autapomorphies -- its evolutionary history.