Re: Support for Enigmosauria

["Ken Kinman" <kinman@hotmail.com>]

    Mickey you are a treasure trove of information, and if everyone would 
look at all this information objectively, you all would see the support for 
"enigmosauria" crumbling before your eyes.
    One of those two "enigmosaur" synapomorphies that has survived scrutiny 
has just bit the dust.  "Reduced basipterygoid processes" are also found in 
"ornithothoracine" birds.  If they can be reduced convergently there, they 
certainly could be reduced even more easily "in parallel" in a paraphyletic 
"enigmosauria".
    Defending this crumbling house of cards just seems like a waste of 
time.  Why not be scientific and test my alternative?   Mickey will be doing 
it one way later on, and I approach it from another perspective.  Is there 
nothing in the convex coracoid glenoids of crocs that would distinguish them 
from those of my Aves sensu lato?  It seems like there is this knee-jerk 
reaction to defend "enigmosauria" for some reason.  To me this case looks 
just like the coelophysids making the old ceratosaur assemblage 
paraphyletic.
    I am trying to show that "enigmosauria" could very well be 
paraphyletic, and ironically those who intensely dislike paraphyletic groups 
are arguing against me.  This seems like a perfect opportunity to work 
together and do some real science, and everyone is trying "to boo me from 
the stage".  I just don't get it.  If I have to do it by myself, so be it, 
but this just strikes me a totally ironic.
       ---  Sincerely,
                 Ken Kinman
****************************************
Mickey Mortimer wrote:
> Look here- http://www.cmnh.org/fun/dinosaur-archive/2001Jul/msg00242.html
> for seven good characters and five more possible characters that Ken could
> use to support his position.  Of course, enigmosaur characters outnumber 
> them.
>
> Mickey Mortimer




_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com