headers
Mickey Rowe | 1 Sep 2007 09:01
Picon

Dinosaur List Administrative Message

This file was last touched August 1, 2007

// For years this message has been sent out every month addressed to
// "undisclosed recipients".  Consequently many of you probably haven't
// seen it in quite some time because it was rejected by your spam filters.
// I think I've found a trivial way to fix that problem...  Anyways, 
// that fix and the addition of this paragraph are the only changes I made
// on August 1st.
//
// If you are receiving this message directly, then this bit of news 
// shouldn't interest you directly...  If you're reading it in the web
// archives and would like to start receiving these messages through e-mail,
// you should go to: http://www.lifesci.ucsb.edu/~mrowe/dinosaur/Subscribe.php
//
// If you're new... we have implemented a filter designed to block all
// MIME or html coded portions of messages.  We had to do this to
// prevent viruses from circulating through the list.  In order for
// your messages to reach everyone, and more importantly in order for
// your messages to appear in the archive, you *MUST* send them as
// plain text only.  If you have any doubts about whether or not you
// are doing this, please check the archives to see how your messages
// are appearing.  If you do not know how to format your mail as plain
// text only, please see: http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
//
// For more explanation about the filter and MESSAGE TRUNCATED errors, 
// please see: http://www.lifesci.ucsb.edu/~mrowe/dinosaur/MessageTruncation.html
// As I noted previously, I've added instructions on how to see the plain 
// text alternative for a few programs: Pine, AppleMail, Juno, and Netscape.
// Check out the MessageTruncation page if you want to see those instructions 
// or would like to add instructions for other mail readers.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Andreas Johansson | 1 Sep 2007 09:14
Picon

Re: something's wrong here: Qianosuchus phylogeny

On 8/31/07, David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic <at> gmx.at> wrote:

> You're right that using supraspecific OTUs greatly increases the risk of
> screwing up. It doesn't guarantee screwing up, however. I'm currently
> working on a paper that (as a side effect) will... probably show this to
> most people's satisfaction.

There is nothing magical with the (morpho-)species level here. Couple
of years ago, SciAm printed a cladogram with _H. erectus_ and _H.
sapiens_ as sister species: very fine, except putting them in as
unitary taxa assumes a priori that the former isn't paraphyletic with
regard to the later.

--

-- 
Andreas Johansson

Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Jaime A. Headden | 1 Sep 2007 11:54
Picon
Favicon

Re: something's wrong here: Qianosuchus phylogeny

Andreas Johansson (andreasj <at> gmail.com) wrote:

<There is nothing magical with the (morpho-)species level here. Couple of years
ago, SciAm printed a cladogram with _H. erectus_ and _H. sapiens_ as sister
species: very fine, except putting them in as unitary taxa assumes a priori
that the former isn't paraphyletic with regard to the later.>

  While it is likely *H. erectus* (as likely with *H. ergaster*) is
paraphyletic with regards to *H. sapiens*, this doesn't affect what David M.
was talking about, in response to what Dave P. was talking about, which was
individual/specimen verus collective OTU capsulization (i.e., putting a
[hopefully] monophyletic group of taxa into a single operating taxonomic unit).
In these, the chosen OTUs are not tending to be inclusive, but subsidiary. Dave
P. was also confused in what he was regarding as paraphyletic, in the comment
about *Scleromochlus* deriving from Proterochampsidae and other such arguments
(e.g., theropods from ornithischians?). This actually derived from an
inaccurate interpretation of a given phylogeny.

  Closest sister taxa in cladistics are in fact given as the closest known form
to the basal taxa that _could_ have given rise to the more derived sister
taxon, so that, say, *Scleromochlus* represents a descendant of the
paraphyletic group from which also sprang Pterosauria, based on Benton's
phylogeny. Neither *Scleromochlus* nor Pterosauria are given as paraphyletic.
Dave P. argued that using a collective OTU (which can be a species or "genus"
or what-have-you) as a split up into individual specimens is the correct method
of application, which is intelligent, but not wholly wise, as this leads to
using juveniles and mutants of species as potentially taxonomically viable
OTU's. Good for testing at a certain level, but problematic on the whole. David
M. mentions in the post that he is testing on this method, and Mike Keesey
opined that the wisdom on the method of using all specimens is very
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Andreas Johansson | 1 Sep 2007 12:37
Picon

Re: something's wrong here: Qianosuchus phylogeny

On 9/1/07, Jaime A. Headden <qilongia <at> yahoo.com> wrote:
> Andreas Johansson (andreasj <at> gmail.com) wrote:
>
> <There is nothing magical with the (morpho-)species level here. Couple of years
> ago, SciAm printed a cladogram with _H. erectus_ and _H. sapiens_ as sister
> species: very fine, except putting them in as unitary taxa assumes a priori
> that the former isn't paraphyletic with regard to the later.>
>
>   While it is likely *H. erectus* (as likely with *H. ergaster*) is
> paraphyletic with regards to *H. sapiens*, this doesn't affect what David M.
> was talking about, in response to what Dave P. was talking about, which was
> individual/specimen verus collective OTU capsulization (i.e., putting a
> [hopefully] monophyletic group of taxa into a single operating taxonomic unit).

I agree with David Marjanovic's basic point - I was just picking a nit
concerning his qualifier "supraspecific".

--

-- 
Andreas Johansson

Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
David Marjanovic | 1 Sep 2007 21:14
Picon
Picon

Re: something's wrong here: Qianosuchus phylogeny

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia <at> yahoo.com>

> <There is nothing magical with the (morpho-)species level here. Couple of 
> years
> ago, SciAm printed a cladogram with _H. erectus_ and _H. sapiens_ as 
> sister
> species: very fine, except putting them in as unitary taxa assumes a 
> priori
> that the former isn't paraphyletic with regard to the later.>

That's a genuine problem, but it hardly ever, if at all, occurs with 
Mesozoic terrestrial vertebrates.

>  While it is likely *H. erectus* (as likely with *H. ergaster*) is
> paraphyletic with regards to *H. sapiens*, this doesn't affect what David 
> M.
> was talking about, in response to what Dave P. was talking about, which 
> was
> individual/specimen verus collective OTU capsulization (i.e., putting a
> [hopefully] monophyletic group of taxa into a single operating taxonomic 
> unit).

I was actually trying to make Mike Keesey's point, which is that using 
populations would be ideal. The closest thing we have to populations of 
Mesozoic terrestrial vertebrates is most likely something like the currently 
recognized so-called species.

> In these, the chosen OTUs are not tending to be inclusive, but subsidiary.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Tim Williams | 2 Sep 2007 02:08
Picon
Favicon

RE: something's wrong here: Qianosuchus phylogeny


David Peters wrote:

>No wonder the authors were not able to figure out where Qianosuchus nested. 
>They needed the following taxa: Triassolestes, Turfanosuchus, 
>Pseudhesperosuchus.

Just a minor quibble.  _Triassolestes_ is a fossil dragonfly (Tillyard, 
1918), _Trialestes_ is the fossil crocodylomorph (Bonaparte, 1982 - to 
replace _Triassolestes_ Reig, 1963).

>And when all the work is done, you have to step back, take a look at the 
>whole thing and ask yourself: "Does this make sense?" remembering that 
>evolution works in tiny increments.

Two things...

(a) "Does this make sense?" is a question that too often is answered by 
someone who believes that there own opinions have priority over analysis of 
the data.  This is also called "hand-waving".

(b) Evolution does not *always* work in tiny increments.  Here's an example 
of one hypothesis to the contrary...

Sears K.E., Behringer R.R., Rasweiler J.J. 4th, and Niswander L.A. (2006) 
Development of bat flight: morphologic and molecular evolution of bat wing 
digits.  Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 103: 6581-6586.

Abstract: "The earliest fossil bats resemble their modern counterparts in 
possessing greatly elongated digits to support the wing membrane, which is
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Michael Mortimer | 2 Sep 2007 02:16
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

RE: Nanningosaurus (was Re: Planet of the New Papers)

Tim Williams wrote-

>(1) WRT your tree, it shows _Gyposaurus_ and _Aralosaurus_ as consecutive 
>outgroups.  This implies that traditional Hadrosaurinae is paraphyletic.  
>I'm not sure of the current definitions of Hadrosaurinae or Lambeosaurinae, 
>although Sereno's (1998) stem-based definitions use _Saurolophus_ and 
>_Parasaurolophus_ as mutually exclusive specifiers.  (Incidentally, 
>TaxonSearch revises these definitions, with the intention of including the 
>name-giving genera as additional specifiers; but the exact definitions are 
>addled with regard to content.)
>
>(2) What happens when _Pararhabdodon_ is included?

As Nick is slow to respond...

I'm not sure about Pararhabdodon, but Aralosaurus was recently reidentified 
as a lambeosaurine (Godefroit et al., 2004), so Nick's tree doesn't imply a 
paraphyletic Hadrosaurinae.

Godefroit, P., Alifanov, V., and Bolotsky, Y. (2004). A re-appraisal of 
Aralosaurus tuberiferus (Dinosauria, Hadrosauridae) from the Late Cretaceous 
of Kazakhstan. Bulletin de l`Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de 
Belgique, Sciences de la Terre 74 (Supplement): 139-154.

Mickey Mortimer
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Dmitry Anisimov | 2 Sep 2007 08:14
Picon
Favicon

Re: Some final references

Thanks to Dr. Baeker for the enlightement.
He's a very kind person and instead of sending me to er.. em
famous search engine he provided me with references which
are related to what I wished to make clear. Also he proved that
some capatabilies are more important than others.

I had once habits of running long distances through almost unpopulated
areas while inhaling through nose and exhaling through mouth, thus
bypassing RTs water retention function. Because of my infantile
character never I took spare water with me. Unfortunately (as I thought),
I had to stop following these routes due to tendon injury.

But only a short time ago I realised in what danger my life had been.
For I could die where nobody was able to help me. I shall never
more talk or take physical exercises, because doing so might prevent
water from being retained. A lot of people are still doing this,
endangering their lives...

I will spend more time lying down and conserving water, conforming to
the key element in the evolutionary strategy which enabled endotherms
to outcompete dinosaurs. I urge everyone should do it. We should
not be confindent with partial water recovery, but go further.
Perhaps, after 2013 days of extensive training one will be able
to recover 107.5% of water added to in inhaled air. This will greatly
contribute to person's health and mental abilities. As of me, I hope I will
be able to write in such sort of grammar that could be parsed and
understood by humans.
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
David Marjanovic | 2 Sep 2007 13:32
Picon
Picon

Re: something's wrong here: Qianosuchus phylogeny

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim Williams" <twilliams_alpha <at> hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 2:08 AM

> Just a minor quibble.  _Triassolestes_ is a fossil dragonfly (Tillyard,
> 1918), _Trialestes_ is the fossil crocodylomorph (Bonaparte, 1982 - to
> replace _Triassolestes_ Reig, 1963).

(Of course, the right thing to do would have been to make up 
"Triadolestes"... <whine>)

> (a) "Does this make sense?" is a question that too often is answered by
> someone who believes that there own opinions have priority over analysis 
> of
> the data.  This is also called "hand-waving".

Often we simply don't know what makes sense. Often the analysis can tell us 
what makes sense, rather than vice versa.

> (b) Evolution does not *always* work in tiny increments.  Here's an 
> example
> of one hypothesis to the contrary...

An extreme and more obvious case are the turtles: the shoulder girdle is 
either outside or inside the ribcage, there can't be any increments (in 
amniotes, whose ribs are never as short as a salamander's).
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Nick | 2 Sep 2007 14:09
Picon

Re: Nanningosaurus (was Re: Planet of the New Papers)

On 9/1/07, Michael Mortimer wrote:
> Tim Williams wrote-
>
> >(1) WRT your tree, it shows _Gyposaurus_ and _Aralosaurus_ as consecutive
> >outgroups.  This implies that traditional Hadrosaurinae is paraphyletic.
> >I'm not sure of the current definitions of Hadrosaurinae or Lambeosaurinae,
> >although Sereno's (1998) stem-based definitions use _Saurolophus_ and
> >_Parasaurolophus_ as mutually exclusive specifiers.  (Incidentally,
> >TaxonSearch revises these definitions, with the intention of including the
> >name-giving genera as additional specifiers; but the exact definitions are
> >addled with regard to content.)
> >
> >(2) What happens when _Pararhabdodon_ is included?
>
> As Nick is slow to respond...
>
> I'm not sure about Pararhabdodon, but Aralosaurus was recently reidentified
> as a lambeosaurine (Godefroit et al., 2004), so Nick's tree doesn't imply a
> paraphyletic Hadrosaurinae.
>
> Godefroit, P., Alifanov, V., and Bolotsky, Y. (2004). A re-appraisal of
> Aralosaurus tuberiferus (Dinosauria, Hadrosauridae) from the Late Cretaceous
> of Kazakhstan. Bulletin de l`Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de
> Belgique, Sciences de la Terre 74 (Supplement): 139-154.
>
> Mickey Mortimer
>
>
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane