Re: [dinosaur] Dinosauria reclassification joins Ornithischia and Theropoda in Ornithoscelida

[David Černý <david.cerny1@gmail.com>]

I am disappointed (but not surprised) to see that you continue to avoid any and all discussion of specifics, preferring instead to patronize me and name-drop mathematicians and computer scientists as if that means something.

Finally, and this is DEFINITELY the last I have to say about this topic,
the code examples I have seen around the net have fundamental
programming and algorithm flaws in them.   I've seen problems with
concurrency, algorithms logic, static memory bugs and more.  So that
magic box that you depend on for results needs to be explored, discussed
with experts in the field, debated, and rewritten.

Wow, the arrogance is just staggering. You honestly believe you're being insightful when you lecture phylogeneticists on the need to explore and rewrite their own software, don't you? While it may come as a huge surprise to you (not so much to anyone else), this happens all the time in the field. For a nice recent example concerning a widely used package, see Moore et al. 2016 vs. Rabosky et al. 2017.

Anyway, it's high time to return to discussing ornithoscelidans. This little digression was fun while it lasted, but it quickly hit the point of diminishing returns.

Refs:

Moore BR, Höhna S, May MR, Rannala B, Huelsenbeck JP 2016 Critically evaluating the theory and performance of Bayesian analysis of macroevolutionary mixtures. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113(34): 9569–74

Rabosky DL, Mitchell JS, Chang J 2017 Is BAMM flawed? Theoretical and practical concerns in the analysis of multi-rate diversification models. Syst Biol doi:10.1093/sysbio/syx037

--

David Černý