Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape


Recent Posts

21
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.
22
Hey, how's that twitter posty thingie work?
23
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
And to top it off they have it as unknown ("?") in the outgroup Allosaurus.

Hey fuckhead, how do you think a "?" in the outgroup is used in cladistic analyses?  Get a clue.
25
Character 1 is referring to the shape of the feathers in terms of their aerodynamic properties, not whether there are feathers, that is a separate character (2 actually) - it would be stupid to add it to this particular character for several reasons:

Character 455: Feathers, filamentous integumentary structures (Stage 1 feathers):
0: absent
1: present
Character 456: Feathers, vaned feathers (Stage 4 feathers):
0: absent
1: present


If Socrates were honest, your post would shut him down.  He'd admit that he fucked up by just looking at the first character in a list of
hundreds, because his "research" abilities are negligible.  But of course we all know what a dishonest, lying prick he is.  So, he'll just double-down on the stupidity and keep on self-quoting.  All we can do is keep poking him with a stick to make him perform for our amusement.
26
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.
28
I have no doubt what Chiropracters do can sometimes make people feel good, just as religion can sometimes make people feel good (or taking drugs). Doesn't negate the fact that they are all shortcuts.
29
Socrates,
Think about the effect "ability to purr" had on this analysis and you might get a clue.  Does "autopomorphy" ring a bell in all your "research"?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
30
It would be because the character would have to be coded as 'present' in the species its known to be present in, and '?', or unknown in everything else, because we have no way of conclusively showing they're absent in everything else.

So it would be an utterly fucking useless character.