Re: Elanodactylus, Andres & Ji 2008

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

> Contra Andres and Ji 2008, I found Elanodactylus to nest with
> Bakonydraco, Eopteranodon and Eoazhdarcho.

Nice, but when will you publish?

As long as you don't, how is anyone supposed to be able to discuss your 
findings?

> Problems like these should stop workers before they publish.

You, on the other hand, never publish your pterosaur phylogenies in the 
first place...

> There's an answer out there that makes sense.
> Keep digging until it all comes together.

Be careful not to put too high a value on what makes intuitive sense. We're 
not in philosophy here. We're in science.

"It cannot be that axioms established by argumentation should avail for the 
discovery of new works; since the subtlety of nature is greater many times 
over than the subtlety of argument. But axioms duly and orderly formed 
_from_ particulars [seems to mean "facts"] easily discover the way to new 
particulars, and thus render sciences active."

Francis Bacon, Aphorism XXIV; emphasis mine.

> Until workers determine the actual outgroup genus (genera) for the
> higher pterosaurs

And when will you answer my often-repeated question as to why you think 
there must be a single known genus in this position?

> Elanodactylus warrants a new species as published, but considering
> the wide variety in Campylognathoides, Rhamphorhynchus,
> Germanodactylus, Pteranodon, Pterodactylus and Nyctosaurus, the jury
> is still out with regard to status as a new genus. Frankly, I prefer
> splitting more than lumping, but there is tradition to consider.

Hardly anything but tradition is to consider -- there is no genericometer.