Re: CLADISTICS AND PALEONTOLOGIST(S) OF THE CENTURY

[Dinogeorge <Dinogeorge@aol.com>]

In a message dated 98-04-29 03:04:12 EDT, cbrochu@fmppr.fmnh.org writes:

<< Yes, I am.  Are you familiar with the word "explicitness?"  I think that's
 the single greatest strength of modern phylogenetics - matrices are
 *published.*  Don't like my results, or Tom's, or anyone else's?  Here's
 the matrix, here's the list of specimens examined during its construction,
 and here's the specific algorithm I used - have at it. >>

Most workers aren't going to bother plowing through someone else's character
matrix when it's so much easier to produce an alternative one. How many
dinosaur-taxonomy papers have you seen recently that take apart a previous
publication and critique each character in the previous publication's matrix
to set things right? One? Two? Instead what happens is the data in the
previous publication more or less becomes incorporated uncritically into
subsequent works, and the whole cladistic process becomes inbred.

What dinosaurology really needs is a bunch of family-level taxonomic surveys
of the kind just published as a supplement to JVP 18/1 on amiid fishes. That's
a real eye-opener, and I'm thrilled to see that there actually exist
professionals capable of this high a standard of work.