Re: Yonghesuchus, was Shuvosaurus

[Nick Pharris <npharris@umich.edu>]

Quoting david peters <davidrpeters@earthlink.net>:

> DM: Are you sure you've included all proposed
> apomorphies of Archosauriformes as characters in your analysis?
>
> > > > > > Not necessary, as explained way earlier.

Not necessary???  You're claiming to have dismantled Archosauriformes,
Archosauria, and Crurotarsi (by pulling Parasuchia outside all of these), and
yet you haven't included all the characters supporting those clades?  I hope
you can see how this is not a valid test.

> > > > > > Taxon inclusion is all that is necessary after 150 or so 
> > > > > > characters are used.

No, as David mentioned, adding taxa while holding character number 
constant will
only *decrease* resolution.

Nick Pharris
Department of Linguistics
University of Michigan