Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape


Recent Posts

11
Nobody's enraged.  You overestimate your "challenge" to the analyses.  You're amusing and it's fun to pop your balloons over and over again while you flail and make stupid arguments because you are so utterly ignorant of every single thing involved.  Tell us (it's OK to lie), have you ever wondered why you've never convinced anybody anywhere that you have a valid point?
13
lmao

lmao forever
14
breaking:  no vote until after recess.
owned
15
breaking:  no vote until after recess.
I think this means the opposition is not just Kabuki.
16
http://datadryad.org/resource/doi:10.5061/dryad.84t75
Brusatte et al
Supplementary Appendix 1: Character List
Character 1: Feathers, vaned feathers on forelimb, form:
0: symmetric
1: asymmetric


http://www.ivpp.cas.cn/qt/papers/201403/P020140314389417822583.pdf
Xu et al
Character list (Characters 1-363 are from Hu et al. (2009), whereas 364-374 are newly
added).
1. Vaned feathers on forelimb symmetric (0) or asymmetric (1). The barbs on opposite
sides of the rachis differ in length; in extant birds, the barbs on the leading edge of flight
feathers are shorter than those on the trailing edge.

Odd. No value for lack of feathers.
This is particularly odd since feathers are such an important character and they have no value for the specific dinosaurs that are acknowledged to have no feathers.
Consequently they make no distinction between "absent" on the one hand and "unknown" ("?") on the other. This is bizarre and makes one question the integrity of the analyses.

This itself may well invalidate the entire analyses. It is bizarre that they set up the character without a value for "absent".

What would be the effect of this bizarre decision?
Well it would downplay the difference between the dinosaurs and the creatures with feathers. It would make them appear to be more similar than they actually are.

And to top it off they have it as unknown ("?") in the outgroup Allosaurus.

Another issue that is perhaps larger than the others is the conflicting opinions on a number of characters related to the manus, carpus and the tarsus. James and Pourtless emphasize this in Appendix 3.
http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
A total of 21 characters were turned on for the alternative analysis: 1 character for the basipterygoid process, 5 characters of the palate, 14 characters of the carpus and manus, and 1 character of the tarsus (Appendix 2)

This will probably enrage people even more.

17
breaking:  no vote until after recess.
18
Try addressing Monad's post if you want to "deal" with something.  Until you do, you earn every insult you receive, asswipe.  And why don't you talk about support indices if you want to "deal" with something else?  Gutless fuck.
19
http://datadryad.org/resource/doi:10.5061/dryad.84t75
Brusatte et al
Supplementary Appendix 1: Character List
Character 1: Feathers, vaned feathers on forelimb, form:
0: symmetric
1: asymmetric


http://www.ivpp.cas.cn/qt/papers/201403/P020140314389417822583.pdf
Xu et al
Character list (Characters 1-363 are from Hu et al. (2009), whereas 364-374 are newly
added).
1. Vaned feathers on forelimb symmetric (0) or asymmetric (1). The barbs on opposite
sides of the rachis differ in length; in extant birds, the barbs on the leading edge of flight
feathers are shorter than those on the trailing edge.

Odd. No value for lack of feathers.
This is particularly odd since feathers are such an important character and they have no value for the specific dinosaurs that are acknowledged to have no feathers.
Consequently they make no distinction between "absent" on the one hand and "unknown" ("?") on the other. This is bizarre and makes one question the integrity of the analyses.

This itself may well invalidate the entire analyses. It is bizarre that they set up the character without a value for "absent".

What would be the effect of this bizarre decision?
Well it would downplay the difference between the dinosaurs and the creatures with feathers. It would make them appear to be more similar than they actually are.

And to top it off they have it as unknown ("?") in the outgroup Allosaurus.

When the folks here are not able to deal with the material I post, they ramp up the insults. That is sad.
20
Hey, how's that twitter posty thingie work?