Re: Morphological dating

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

> The change in rate at Eumaniraptora is annoyingly post hoc.

Yes. Apparently they used a constant rate for Eumaniraptora and another 
constant rate for the rest of the tree -- neither theoretically defensible 
nor necessary in practice, considering molecular dating programs like r8s, 
PATHd8 or (shudder) Multidivtime.

> I'd like to see this "morphological clock" tested with living animals, 
> compared to their molecular clocks, before I put any weight in using the 
> method for extinct animals.

Promised for my thesis. :-) Unless the rest takes too long, as an amniote 
phylogeny by a perfectionist like me just might -- if it doesn't become very 
clear very soon that it's turtles all the way down.