Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape


Recent Posts

11
u r fake news, borealis.

FAKE
13
It isn't real. Someone would have leaked it by now.

heh.
14
Yes

Conversations with those who swear by them are awkward.
15
  <  clip masturbatory self-quoting  > 
  <  clip masturbatory self-quoting  > 

http://www.ivpp.cas.cn/qt/papers/201403/P020140314389417822583.pdf (2011)
An Archaeopteryx-like theropod from China and the origin of Avialae
Xing Xu1,2, Hailu You3 , Kai Du4 & Fenglu Han2
It should be noted that our phylogenetic hypothesis is only weakly supported by the available data. Bremer support and bootstrap values for the recovered coelurosaurian subclades are, in general, low, and a bootstrap value less than 50% and a Bremer support value of 2 are obtained for a monophyletic Deinonychosauria including the Archaeopterygidae (see Supplementary Information). This low support is partly caused by various homoplasies, many of which are functionally significant, that are widely distributed across coelurosaurian phylogeny29.
16
The fact that it was up for less than 24 hours is hilarious.
17
did I kill the thread?
18
Depending on which version of the commandments they used, this guy was just obeying the second.
19

Quote
http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
The shaded area represents the "ascending process of the astragalus," the homology of which is unclear across these taxa; in birds it may not be an ascending process of the astragalus at all, but rather a descending pretibial ossification (see Appendix 3).

How do Brusatte et al handle the uncertainty about that ossification?

This is where people here go very quiet. At least James and Pourtless were honest about the uncertainty of certain characteristics. The established researchers/authors do not acknowledge the uncertainty. And interestingly enough, code the characteristics in ways that support the dino to bird theory. But everybody knows this. I am just pointing it out.


I have now covered specifically the manus and the "ascending process of the astragalus".
Here is what is interesting but a fair amount of work:
James and Pourtless are honest and conservative. They point out the uncertainty of a number of characteristics and run their analyses excluding them and then coding them as "?". They found that other hypotheses were as well founded as the dino to bird theory.
It would be interesting to code them with the alternate interpretation and see the result. That is a fair amount of work.

Then do it. What characteristics will you code for?

Care to join in? How would you change the Brusatte et al coding for the alternate interpretation of the "ascending process of the astragalus"? In other words, that it is a descending pretibial ossification.

The Brusatte et al coding is available from a link here:
http://datadryad.org/resource/doi:10.5061/dryad.84t75
http://datadryad.org/bitstream/handle/10255/dryad.69251/BrusatteetalRevisionDryadFile1.docx?sequence=1

It is even a bit difficult to understand how to go about this. I presume that the Brusatte et al matrix info would have to be changed so that the dinosaurs were coded as "descending process of the astragalus" and the Euparaves coded as descending pretibial ossification. What do folks think?

What do folks think about that specific question?
My point is what would the Brusatte et al data look like if we accepted the alternate interpretation? This is a question that not only has never been answered - the question itself has never even been asked.
Quote
I presume that the Brusatte et al matrix info would have to be changed so that the dinosaurs were coded as "descending process of the astragalus" and the Euparaves coded as descending pretibial ossification.
What would be the effect of that? I do not expect anyone here to answer that question. This is beyond you. Time to ramp up the distractions and the insults.

http://www.ivpp.cas.cn/qt/papers/201403/P020140314389417822583.pdf (2011)
An Archaeopteryx-like theropod from China and the origin of Avialae
Xing Xu1,2, Hailu You3 , Kai Du4 & Fenglu Han2
It should be noted that our phylogenetic hypothesis is only weakly supported by the available data. Bremer support and bootstrap values for the recovered coelurosaurian subclades are, in general, low, and a bootstrap value less than 50% and a Bremer support value of 2 are obtained for a monophyletic Deinonychosauria including the Archaeopterygidae (see Supplementary Information). This low support is partly caused by various homoplasies, many of which are functionally significant, that are widely distributed across coelurosaurian phylogeny29.
20
All this inane chit chat is really detracting from the crucial issue here.






The piss tape. Please please please let it be real.