tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post4418643918978260236..comments2024-03-18T18:17:34.333+01:00Comments on Theropoda: Triassic Phythodinosaurs or Death!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-78525276428399820592010-08-08T16:49:41.148+02:002010-08-08T16:49:41.148+02:00@Erodoto,
ciò sarebbe scorretto per due motivi:
1-...@Erodoto,<br />ciò sarebbe scorretto per due motivi:<br />1- Ridurre la quantità di dati è una strategia che apparentemente può aumentare la risoluzione, ma che nella realtà produce solo analisi parziali.<br />2- Come fai a dire che il cranio "è più omoplastico"? L'omoplasia è una misura a posteriori del risultato: se ometti il cranio non saprai mai che esso è omoplastico. Ad ogni Andrea Cauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10855060597677361866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-29957290958195738122010-08-08T16:37:05.724+02:002010-08-08T16:37:05.724+02:00@Mickey wrote:
"So could there be a longer tr...@Mickey wrote:<br />"So could there be a longer tree different from your unconstrained consensus that the Templeton test finds significantly more probable than your unconstrained tree?"<br />No, because the Test cannot determine "the most probable tree". The latter is based on parsimony: on the number of steps. I think that method is the best way to analyse phylogenies. The Andrea Cauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10855060597677361866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-32407606633596685152010-08-08T11:37:14.232+02:002010-08-08T11:37:14.232+02:00Scusami, ma se escludessimo brutalmente tutta l...Scusami, ma se escludessimo brutalmente tutta l'anatomia cranica (ovvero quella in cui è più facile che si sviluppino omoplasie e convergenze dovute all'alimentazione), come si modificherebbe l'albero. <br /><br />Inoltre testare un ipotesi in questo modo ha senso, oppure ridurre artificialmente i dati è una scelta sempre sbagliata?<br /><br />(anche vedere di nuovo _Cryolophosaurus_ Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-29255289963978736482010-08-07T23:01:26.046+02:002010-08-07T23:01:26.046+02:00Hilarious that Theropoda+Ornithischia got a better...Hilarious that Theropoda+Ornithischia got a better score step-wise, but I'm intrigued that it got a worse Templeton score. Since all Mesozoic dinosaur analyses use strict parsimony (the tree with the fewest total steps is best), but the Templeton test seems not to (since a tree with less steps was calculated to be less likely), doesn't that imply that the most parsimonious tree is not Mickey Mortimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08831823442911513851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-82719447371350418032010-08-07T19:14:05.820+02:002010-08-07T19:14:05.820+02:00"Omnivorous" is a vague term for everyth..."Omnivorous" is a vague term for everything is not strictly carnivorous nor stricly herbivorous...<br />It is often difficult to determine if a fossil is omnivorous: where basal ornithischians (Heterodontosaurs, "lesothosaurs") omnivorous? Were "guaibasaurids" herbivorous? And what about Eoraptor?<br /><br />I prefer not to discuss these conditions, often unclear in Andrea Cauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10855060597677361866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-18641646094260474122010-08-07T16:31:56.571+02:002010-08-07T16:31:56.571+02:00I always hear about carnivorous and herbivorous di...I always hear about carnivorous and herbivorous dinosaurs, but... how about the omnivorous? Carnivory and herbivory are opposite specializations, so the transition for one to another needs some step of omnivory. But it's curious that there's a lot of carni/herbi couples along amniote evolution: caseasauria/eupelycosauria, gorgonopsia/anomodontia, cynognathids/traversodonts, theropods/João Simõeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10222169018695033058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-23265358816906720372010-08-07T05:12:26.621+02:002010-08-07T05:12:26.621+02:00Parsimoniuously disturbing!Parsimoniuously disturbing!Jorge W. Moreno-Bernalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07976192263827652422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-27445285392397244942010-08-07T02:04:18.768+02:002010-08-07T02:04:18.768+02:00Hey, 15 steps. Not that different from the 13 usi...Hey, 15 steps. Not that different from the 13 using Ezcurra's (2010) matrix. Be sure to check the crazy Theropoda+Ornithischia alternative too. ;)Mickey Mortimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08831823442911513851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-25280880239833977132010-08-06T23:40:44.654+02:002010-08-06T23:40:44.654+02:00You know of course, Phytodinosauria must also incl...You know of course, Phytodinosauria must also include therizinosaurids (Paul, 1984). ;) Does your constraint in tree B force Silesaurids to be in the ornithischian-sauropodomorph clade or are those taxa just drawn in by the way characters are distributed in the suboptimal trees. I am surprised that the number of steps is not that different. What taxa are represented by 'derived Nick Gardnerhttp://whyihatetheropods.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.com