Re: Various & Sundry (was RE: Dinosaur Genera List corrections #153 (JOKE))

["Mickey_Mortimer" <Mickey_Mortimer@email.msn.com>]

Thomas Holtz wrote-

> Whoa there.  It was an important early work, but as you state it it
suggests
> that this was an analysis run comprably to modern standards.  However,
that
> is not the case.  The "matrix" was not evaluated for parsimony analysis,
and
> thus the tree presented is not necessarily the most parsimonious tree.

Yeah.  I should have explained a bit better.  Of course, phylogenetic
programs were unknown at the time and his matrix was more in the form of a
table.  Still, he had his characters placed at certain points on the
cladogram to help support his phylogeny.  I simply wanted to test if his
phylogeny held up under a parsimony analysis and if updating his matrix
would affect it.  As far as I know, it's a fairly unique phylogeny (only
approached by Paul (1984, 1988)) that hasn't shown up in later analyses.

Mickey Mortimer