Re: How was that about Jaime and proof?

[David Peters <davidrpeters@earthlink.net>]

On Jun 19, 2006, at 4:16 AM, Martin Baeker wrote:

> Just one comment here:
>
> > David, you need to show one case, and one case only, of a juvenile
> > that does not look like an adult of the same genus or larger clade  
> > - and
> > doesn't resemble some other adult taxa that it is totally  
> > unrelated to. If you
> > can, and if you do, then we can fight like rats in a cage about  
> > the details
> > and evidence. Until then you have no evidence and your arguments  
> > are based on
> > rhetoric and examples from other unrelated clades. Stick to  
> > pterosaurs.
>
> How the heck should this be possible? Unless you have a complete
> growth series, how could you identify a juvenile as belonging to a
> certain adult if it looks not like an adult of the same clade?
>
> Martin.
>
>                    Priv.-Doz. Dr. Martin Bäker
>                    Institut für Werkstoffe
>                    Langer Kamp 8
>                    38106 Braunschweig
>                    Germany
>                    Tel.: 00-49-531-391-3073
>                    Fax   00-49-531-391-3058
>                    e-mail <martin.baeker@tu-bs.de>

Exactly my point.
You're all trying to pull a rabbit out a hat.

What you're promoting is similar to: baby crows become adult hawks.  
Or baby seagulls become adult plovers.

Just include all pterosaurs and let PAUP find the relationships. It's  
surprisingly wonderful when you do. Some babies, Iike Pterodaustro  
and Cycnorhamphus, align with their rightful parent clade. Others are  
'orphans' without parents. And that's okay.

David Peters