Re: Gaia theropod follow-up: a "new" phylogeny

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 10/9/00 9:13:41 PM EST, Mickey_Mortimer@email.msn.com 
writes:

<< You wrote-
 
 > Okay, 41 ingroup taxa (plus 3 fragmentary specimens held in reserve, each
 > added independantly) and 386 characters, run with either Herrerasauridae,
 > basal Sauropodomorpha, or an allzero outgroup as sister taxa.
 
 Arghh! I can no longer say my analysis uses more characters than any
 published study ;-).  I have a measly 296 entered and 50 or so still being
 studied. >>

Is it just me, or do other people find this endless hunt for ever more 
"characters" just plain CRAZY? The computer will, of course, grind out trees 
as long as you give it "characters" to chew on, but do you really BELIEVE in 
the resulting phylogenies, or are they just so much nonsense, to be discarded 
when the next batch of computer-generated trees, crunching even more 
"characters," emerges? If so, why not hold out until you've found ALL 
possible "characters," grind out the one big tree and be done with it? But 
then how would you CHECK this tree against reality? Are synapomorphy wars 
what the search for truth in paleontology is really like?