> As mentioned above, I also scored Darwinopterus for the Wang et al.
> 2009 data set. It is isometric with “Wukongopterus” which can thus
> be safely deleted from the analysis. According to Wang et al. 2009
> “Wukongopterus” has missing data for 34 out of the 89 characters
> used in their analysis (and is thus 62% complete). Darwinopterus
> adds data for 28 of these characters and is thus 93% complete. So,
> I reran the Wang et al. 2009 data set using this near complete
> sequence for Darwinopterus/"Wukongopterus". [...] Anyway, one might
> predict, as Kellner’s comment implies, that the better known
> Darwinopterus (compared to “Wukongopterus”) should now fall out as
> a sister group to pterodactyloids. Not so. This more complete data
> set generated a lot more trees (109980), and the strict concensus
> was very poorly resolved, failing, for example, to recover a
> monophyletic Pterodactyloidea. Darwinopterus formed a polytomy with
> many other basal forms and several pterodactyloid clades. The 50%
> Majority Rule tree did recover a monophyletic Pterodactyoidea, but
> “Ornithocheirus” compressirostris was located basal to Dimorphodon.