Re: Where have all the ornithischians gone?

[David Peters <davidrpeters@earthlink.net>]

Tim Williams wrote:
As for putting _Lotosaurus_ and _Silesaurus_ in the Ornithischia (or
"Paraornithischia"), I don't see a compelling case for this at all.
Perhaps there are vague resemblences seen when eyeballing the specimens
- and maybe it does help to squint. :-) But we'll need to analyze the
individual characters present in the specimens in order to assess the
phylogenetic affiities of _Silesaurus_ and _Lotosaurus_. In the past,
we've been led dangerously astray by eyeballing (e.g., _Longisquama_ or
_Cosesaurus_ as pro-avians; _Acrocanthosaurus_ as a spinosaurid, etc).

>>>>>

Funny how one reads what they want to read and disregard the rest.

>From Sat. June 25:

If you squint (or use PAUP)

>>>>


In other words, I did use PAUP. My feeble use of humor was meant to
indicate that no matter what method you use, you'll get the same results
? if you include these taxa.

PAUP nests everything, as you know, so I'm going to get "a hit"
somewhere. Among 124 diapsids (with no more than a few in every clade)
Lotosaurus comes out closest to Silesaurus and Pisanosaurus.

I was also surprised.

Motto: Test it and see. If they've never been to "the dance" together,
you never really know how they'll pair up.

David Peters
St. Louis

PS. Longisquama and Cosesaurus have also been PAUP analyzed. And we've
all been waiting five years for the next guy/gal brave enough to test
them.