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

["Tracy Ford" <tlford@ix.netcom.com>]

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? <<

Crazy, that's to kind a word. I've just seen an article redescribing a
Jurassic lizard with 100 or so characters The Character matrix is nearly as
long as the article. It's getting way out of hand. Tom says his article in
Gaia is going to torn apart at the SVP. Give me a break!!! It's constantly
changing. Now instead of naming a node, cladis just say unnamed node. They
don't have to worry about Order, Family, etc. so they just place new nodes
were ever they want. Its frustrating, especially for me because I'm trying
to put together a complete taxa list for all the named Paleozoic and
Mesozoic tetrapods (I believe I've done it, using both Cladist and Linnean
systems).This system is totally out of control. They don't like the Linnaean
rules so instead of working with the rules they make totally new ones.
Luckily that doesn't work with sports.
Tracy