> Note that although the _Koreanosaurus_ paper includes a cladogram,
the relationships of this taxon were never actually tested. As the authors put it: "_Koreanosaurus was simply placed by hand on this cladogramme [sic], on the base of the characters that can directly be observed on the _Koreanosaurus_ material at hand." IMHO, this approach should not be encouraged, because the figured cladogram gives the misleading impression that a sister-taxon relationship was recovered between _Orodromeus_ and _Koreanosaurus_. In fact, t
> [snippage in the original]
esis that _Koreanosaurus_ belonged to the 'zephyrosaur' clade (_Zephyrosaurus_-_Orodromeus_-_Oryctodromeus_) was not tested, and the precise affinities of _Koreanosaurus_ to other ornithischians remain an open question.
This means the tree in the paper is _not_ a cladogram. The term "cladogram" should only be used for the result of a cladistic analysis.
BTW, maybe the snip demon would disappear if you stopped using Yahoo!? Has anyone else had that problem?