Re: Being "scientific" about segnosaurs

[NJPharris@aol.com]

In a message dated Wed, 30 Jan 2002 10:59:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Ken 
Kinman" <kinman@hotmail.com> writes:


>       I can certainly understand why people get upset with Feduccia's 
> approach (which I regard as extreme eclecticism). 

Huh?  I'm sorry; I guess I don't understand what you mean by "eclecticism".  A 
return to Classification by Fiat?


> But I am forming a 
> falsifiable hypothesis of coelurosaurian phylogeny that will be testable.

But, you see, it's already *been* tested.  Somebody didn't just *guess* that 
oviraptorosaurs and therizinosaurs were closely related; that hypothesis was 
the most parsimonious explanation for the distribution of characters in 
somebody's experiment.  How else do you want it "tested"?


> If it fails scientific scrutiny, I'll admit it and accept it.  

And yet you haven't...


> But please 
> don't brand it as unscientific just because it challenges the holophyly of 
> "enigmosauria".  

Monophyly of "enigmosauria" is not some religious tenet.  Indeed, at first 
blush, I was inclined to doubt it.  But for the time being it is the best 
explanation out there, and those are the criteria we work under.


> This is very serious stuff, and I wouldn't be sticking my 
> neck out like this if I didn't think it was important.  If I'm wrong, and 
> "enigmosauria" is holophyletic, so be it.  Until then, I will be seriously 
> considering the possibility that "enigmosauria" is based on homoplasies and 
> is probably paraphyletic.

Of course you have to *consider* that; on some level, you have to *consider* 
the possibility that tyrannosaurs are highly specialized flamingos (or hagfish, 
or mushrooms, or whatever).  The question is, what makes your hypothesis 
*better* than the hypothesis that oviraptorosaurs and therizinosaurs are sister 
groups?  Is it more parsimonious?  Does it have more explanatory power?


> It's a very tricky part of the coelurosaur tree, 
> and am I just pursuing the problem in a more eclectic manner.  

Again, what does that mean?

--Nick P.