Re: Where have all the ornithischians gone?

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> In other words, I did use PAUP. My feeble use of humor was meant to
> indicate that no matter what method you use, you'll get the same results
> ? if you include these taxa.
>
> PAUP nests everything, as you know, so I'm going to get "a hit"
> somewhere. Among 124 diapsids (with no more than a few in every clade)
> Lotosaurus comes out closest to Silesaurus and Pisanosaurus.
>
> I was also surprised.

Of course I can't comment this at all as long as I can't see your matrix, 
and I'm sure this holds for everyone else as well. Were there enough 
rauisuchians and aetosaurs in your matrix, were there enough basal 
archosauriforms (*Euparkeria*, *Yonghesuchus*, Proterochampsidae, 
Erythrosuchidae, and so on), were there enough basal dinosauromorphs (there 
aren't many of those), how many herbivory-related and thus perhaps 
correlated characters did you use, did you use characters like the 
rauisuchian-aetosaurian hip and the various ankle types, how many characters 
are there in the first place, and so on? _How much_ less parsimonious are 
alternative arrangements? Did you add *Revueltosaurus*... oh, wait, you 
can't have, its postcrania aren't described yet...