Re: [dinosaur] Ornithoscelida re-examined, and re-re-examined

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

The reply contains this:

"Following scrutiny of the character data underpinning our phylogeny1, Langer 
et al.2 identify numerous disagreements in terms of character scoring and 
suggest changing approximately 2,500 scorings, around 10% of the character 
data. This extensive re-scoring results in recovery of the âtraditionalâ 
topology, although with less resolution and very weak support; their result is 
statistically indistinguishable from the possibility that our topology provides 
a better explanation of the data. This weak support, despite these extensive 
changes, suggests that the âtraditionalâ tree struggles to account for many 
character distributions."

Uh, it does. But it also suggests that the Ornithoscelida tree struggles just 
as much, indeed a little bit _more_, to account for many character 
distributions. That sentence was a waste of precious space.