Re: origin of bats/suspect trees?

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

> Blood work is not definitive. Morphology rules.

This is an argument from ignorance. Why aren't you ashamed of yourself?

It is of course true that molecular phylogenetics comes with its own suite 
of problems, the same way that morphological phylogenetics does, and it's of 
course also true that both share a suite of problems.

But in the present situation of placental phylogenetics, where there are 
comprehensive molecular analyses and pitifully fragmentary morphological 
analyses, you have to ACTUALLY SHOW that a given molecular analysis suffers 
from a PARTICULAR problem or several.

Plus, learn about LINEs and SINEs. You might want to start with these 
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=g769208964~db=all papers.

Science. Evidence. Put up or shut up.

> :   ) Martin and Feduccia have just entered the room. The single
> character mindset. Where's the suite Jaime?

You are both wrong. Put manatees into your analysis and look what happens.

(That said, manatees have banana-shaped ribs, famously the only ribs that 
are diagnostic beyond "mammal". They aren't flat.)

> > <reduced distal ulna,>
> >
> >   Most cursorial mammals?
>
> :   )

Correlated to limb proportions. You know what to do with correlated 
characters.

> > <tooth counts, tooth shapes, etc.>
> >
> >   Ah, and this is constrained primarily by diet.
>
> and yet, there are patterns and suites of patterns. You've got to
> think about the whole critter.

That's not how PAUP* works. You keep idolizing PAUP*, but it assumes a 
priori that every character is completely independent and doesn't try to do 
anything about that.