Re: A Critical Re-examination of Theropod Phylogenetics

[Nick Gardner <nick.gardner@gmail.com>]

On 8/23/05, J <sappororaptor@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 'Silly little' incomplete taxa do disrupt analyses to an extent, but i'd 
> rather learn of their
> possible relationships in theropod evolution than seeing that Dromaeosauridae 
> are nestled closest
> to birds for the millionth time. Your tree is informative for the 
> beginner/freshman in theropod
> phylogenies, but is too basic to get me excited. For example this portion of 
> your clade below:
> 
>                                       /---- Ceratosaurus
> ---------------------------------------+
>                                       \---- Abelisauridae
> 
> is very simple yet encompases 10-20 taxa spanning the Late Jurassic to the 
> Late Cretaceous.
> Furthermore, several Abelisaurids (Abelisauroids) are known from good skull 
> material, so your
> latter branch can be further subdivided WITHOUT the need to invoke any silly 
> postcranial
> characters.
> 
> Many postcranial characters are quite progressive and therefore informative. 
> Consider the hands &
> feet, as John mentioned. Howabout the cervical vertebral characters in 
> Naosaurids, caudal
> vertebral characters in Oviraptorosaurs,
> 

Don't be silly, haven't you been paying attention? They're all
superficially similiar postcranially, none of those silly postcrania
have any influence on their relationships at all. Why even run those
characters? It's a bloody waste of time, and I don't want to miss my
tea. ;[

Nick Gardner