Re: Livezey and Zusi's big bird morph analysis [...]

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

> But the case for convergence confounding analyses has
> been made, time and again, for exactly this clade. It
> is THE showcase example where parsimony is likely to
> run into a wall*, and has been since more than a
> decade (in fact, try doi:10.1007/BF01908745). This
> cannot be dismissed out of hand. Basically they
> reiterate a cold case; this is not good.

Wait a minute. How else than by cladistic analysis can we _recognize_ 
convergence?

> * Especially in such large-scale analyses, where the
> data set cannot be sufficiently fine-grained because
> it could then not be applied to many other taxa.

That doesn't really matter. With clever coding inapplicable characters can 
often be avoided, and the rest is just treated as missing data.

> A morphological analysis of foot-propelled divers that
> is good (IMHO) would run into problems as soon as it
> comes to outgroup selection, because the character set
> would include a load of F-PD apomorphies.

It is not possible to do a morphological cladistic analysis _of 
foot-propelled divers_. Such an analysis must be done of Neoaves or 
Neognathae as a whole. Fossils included (Palaelodidae, *Juncitarsus*...!).

However, correlated characters must be avoided. (Correlated characters are 
really one character that is given more weight than the others.)