Re: something's wrong here: Qianosuchus phylogeny

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

> As a positive-thinking scientist who wants to support the traditional 
> tree, you could say, "It's simple: Here's how you derive Scleromochlus 
> from the proterochampsids and pterosaurs from the scleromochlids."

No, my friend. No. The most recent common ancestor of pterosaurs and 
scleromochlids was, by definition, not a scleromochlid. (It wasn't a 
pterosaur either.) The most recent common ancestor of scleromochlids and 
proterochampsids was, by definition, not a proterochampsid. (It wasn't a 
scleromochlid either.)

There's a difference between "ancestor" and "sister-group". There's a 
difference between "mother" and "sister".

Nodes and internodes are ancestors. Terminal taxa are not ancestors. Never 
ever. By definition.

> And speaking of larger surveys, Hill 2005 is full of errors.

That's interesting. If you get to publish that (or, failing that, talk about 
the details with me), I'll get to cite you in my still-not-begun thesis.