Re: Morphological dating

[evelyn sobielski <koreke77@yahoo.de>]

--- David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
schrieb:

> > 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.

There is a somewhat suspect paper out in one of the
bird journals (I think) on a Cretaceous origin of
pigeons, which I have not read. Basically trying to
trick around the fact that there is no pre-Neogene
record to speak of (though one *might* reasonably
expect there to be, given the Aussie passerines which
would under either scenario shared range with
pigeons). The phylogeny seems, judging from the
abstract, also a bit contrary to older models which
place the center of radiation farther W.

When I get to looking at it, I'll post it if nobody
else does. Would be interesting if their approach
seems any good.


Eike


      Heute schon einen Blick in die Zukunft von E-Mails wagen? Versuchen Sie´s 
mit dem neuen Yahoo! Mail. www.yahoo.de/mail