https://www.academia.edu/51580907/The_four_flipper_swimming_method_of_plesiosaurs_enabled_efficient_and_effective_locomotion?email_work_card=view-paper
DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
https://www.academia.edu/51580907/The_four_flipper_swimming_method_of_plesiosaurs_enabled_efficient_and_effective_locomotion?email_work_card=view-paper
They weren't dinosaurs, though I am the first to agree that the term, or
at least it's definition, needs a great deal of refining.
What is the definition of dinosaurs and why does it need refining?
Pandora wrote:
What is the definition of dinosaurs and why does it need refining?
This isn't school and I am not anyone's teacher but let's start with endothermic
vs. exothermic and work out from there.
The proper biological terms are
Pandora wrote:
The proper biological terms are
Lol! Typical narcissist... and never heard of Feynman, obviously.
So like you were just saying; some creatures we label dinosaurs are
COLD BLOODED and some appear WARM BLOODED. And that's a
major difference. Think of any differences that separate humans from
other "Apes" and it's orders of magnitude larger, this difference... this >COLD BLOODED vs WARM BLOODED that you speak about.
Lol! Typical narcissist... and never heard of Feynman, obviously.
It's just biology, not physics.
Yet such a derived character as homeothermy of a subclade is no reason
to exclude it from a more inclusive clade
and thus to exclude birds from dinosaurs
Pandora wrote:
Lol! Typical narcissist... and never heard of Feynman, obviously.
It's just biology, not physics.
*Whoosh*
Yet such a derived character as homeothermy of a subclade is no reason
to exclude it from a more inclusive clade
Why? Says who?
and thus to exclude birds from dinosaurs
That's circular. Your statement is predicated on the view that the position is >immutable, that the argument I mentioned never existed. Yes, that's "Circular."
I Envy JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Pandora wrote:
Lol! Typical narcissist... and never heard of Feynman, obviously.
It's just biology, not physics.
Note Title
https://www.academia.edu/51580907/The_four_flipper_swimming_method_of_plesiosaurs_enabled_efficient_and_effective_locomotion?email_work_card=view-paper
On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 11:44:42 PM UTC-4, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
https://www.academia.edu/51580907/The_four_flipper_swimming_method_of_plesiosaurs_enabled_efficient_and_effective_locomotion?email_work_card=view-paper
Note Title, dino, not dinosaur.
Pandora wrote:
I Envy JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Pandora wrote:
Lol! Typical narcissist... and never heard of Feynman, obviously.
It's just biology, not physics.
Goog golly God, you pretend to want a discussion when you're just a
typical narcissist trying to destroy that it can't control...
https://youtu.be/px_4TxC2mXU
There. Feynman.
You learned something know, despite all your efforts,
though I can't say you can grasp what it means let along place it into
the context of this exchange.
Get it now, narcissist?
Relax. That was a rhetorical question,
But you see this? All this replies, all these words, this efforts because you're ignorant and lack any interest in knowledge. Feynman is hugely
famous, this and other stories of his made it into numerous lectures, countless videos, immeasurable quotes... all taught outside of
physics, even within the field of teaching!
But you, well, no clue.
And you could have just Googled it. You had a name. You had A CONTEXT.
You could have just looked. If it mattered. If you were something other than a goddamn narcissist trying to stop what it can't control.
So waste your circular "Arguments" on someone else. I know what you are
and quite frankly it'll be more useful coming back at your obfuscation than attempt genuine discourse with you.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/661968288731004928
Pandora wrote:
I Envy JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Pandora wrote:
Lol! Typical narcissist... and never heard of Feynman, obviously.
It's just biology, not physics.
Goog golly God, you pretend to want a discussion when you're just a
typical narcissist trying to destroy that it can't control...
https://youtu.be/px_4TxC2mXU
There. Feynman. You learned something know, despite all your efforts,
though I can't say you can grasp what it means let along place it into
the context of this exchange.
Get it now, narcissist?
Relax. That was a rhetorical question,
But you see this? All this replies, all these words, this efforts because >you're ignorant and lack any interest in knowledge. Feynman is hugely
famous, this and other stories of his made it into numerous lectures, >countless videos, immeasurable quotes... all taught outside of
physics, even within the field of teaching!
But you, well, no clue.
And you could have just Googled it. You had a name. You had A CONTEXT.
You could have just looked. If it mattered. If you were something other than >a goddamn narcissist trying to stop what it can't control.
So waste your circular "Arguments" on someone else. I know what you are
and quite frankly it'll be more useful coming back at your obfuscation than >attempt genuine discourse with you.
On Sat, 11 Sep 2021 12:09:07 -0700 (PDT), I Envy JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Pandora wrote:
I Envy JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Pandora wrote:
Lol! Typical narcissist... and never heard of Feynman, obviously.
It's just biology, not physics.
Goog golly God, you pretend to want a discussion when you're just a
typical narcissist trying to destroy that it can't control...
https://youtu.be/px_4TxC2mXU
There. Feynman. You learned something know, despite all your efforts, >though I can't say you can grasp what it means let along place it into
the context of this exchange.
Get it now, narcissist?
Relax. That was a rhetorical question,
But you see this? All this replies, all these words, this efforts because >you're ignorant and lack any interest in knowledge. Feynman is hugely >famous, this and other stories of his made it into numerous lectures, >countless videos, immeasurable quotes... all taught outside of
physics, even within the field of teaching!
But you, well, no clue.
And you could have just Googled it. You had a name. You had A CONTEXT.
You could have just looked. If it mattered. If you were something other than >a goddamn narcissist trying to stop what it can't control.
So waste your circular "Arguments" on someone else. I know what you areYou're just pissed because you didn't understand the argument. You
and quite frankly it'll be more useful coming back at your obfuscation than >attempt genuine discourse with you.
think it's the jargon that gets in the way while it's actually your
lack of knowledge and understanding. And, because of their
unreasonably high selfesteem, to a true narcissist that feels like a
personal insult, to which you could only respond with ad hominem and
showing off with a Nobel laureate (and of course I understand the
difference between knowing what something is called and really knowing
what it's about, the difference between jargon/definition and idea).
You thought that a definition of dinosaurs would be complicated,
something typological requiring knowledge about their physiology, and
in need of refining, while it actually is quite simple. All you need
is a decent phylogeny, based on empirical data (taxa and their
characters), from which you can then choose one or more reference
taxa.
In the case of Dinosauria a theropod (Passer domesticus), ornithiscian (Triceratops horridus) and sauropod (Diplodocus carnegii,
together with a qualifier ("the least inclusive clade containing")).
So yeah, the bee hummingbird is the smallest known extant dinosaur.
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:18:16 AM UTC-4, Pandora wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2021 12:09:07 -0700 (PDT), I Envy JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Pandora wrote:You're just pissed because you didn't understand the argument. You
I Envy JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Pandora wrote:
Lol! Typical narcissist... and never heard of Feynman, obviously.
It's just biology, not physics.
Goog golly God, you pretend to want a discussion when you're just a
typical narcissist trying to destroy that it can't control...
https://youtu.be/px_4TxC2mXU
There. Feynman. You learned something know, despite all your efforts,
though I can't say you can grasp what it means let along place it into
the context of this exchange.
Get it now, narcissist?
Relax. That was a rhetorical question,
But you see this? All this replies, all these words, this efforts because >> >you're ignorant and lack any interest in knowledge. Feynman is hugely
famous, this and other stories of his made it into numerous lectures,
countless videos, immeasurable quotes... all taught outside of
physics, even within the field of teaching!
But you, well, no clue.
And you could have just Googled it. You had a name. You had A CONTEXT.
You could have just looked. If it mattered. If you were something other than
a goddamn narcissist trying to stop what it can't control.
So waste your circular "Arguments" on someone else. I know what you are
and quite frankly it'll be more useful coming back at your obfuscation than >> >attempt genuine discourse with you.
think it's the jargon that gets in the way while it's actually your
lack of knowledge and understanding. And, because of their
unreasonably high selfesteem, to a true narcissist that feels like a
personal insult, to which you could only respond with ad hominem and
showing off with a Nobel laureate (and of course I understand the
difference between knowing what something is called and really knowing
what it's about, the difference between jargon/definition and idea).
You thought that a definition of dinosaurs would be complicated,
something typological requiring knowledge about their physiology, and
in need of refining, while it actually is quite simple. All you need
is a decent phylogeny, based on empirical data (taxa and their
characters), from which you can then choose one or more reference
taxa.
In the case of Dinosauria a theropod (Passer domesticus), ornithiscian
(Triceratops horridus) and sauropod (Diplodocus carnegii,
Why aren't you cutting it down to two: sauriscian and ornithiscian?
Is it because you have doubts about whether theropods are more closely related >to ornithiscians or to sauropods, and are hedging your bets either way?
If not, why bother giving the most inclusive clade for the common pigeon?
Or a clade like avialae, which at least tells what Passer is for those who don't
recognize it as the genus of a bird?
together with a qualifier ("the least inclusive clade containing")).
What's the point of the qualifier?
What's Feynman supposed to be doing on a thread that belongs in sci.bio.paleontology
Pandora isn't interested in discussing anything that grabs your fancy,
https://youtu.be/px_4TxC2mXU
There. Feynman.
I'm well into the video, but I hear nothing about plesiosaurs.
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
What's Feynman supposed to be doing on a thread that belongs in sci.bio.paleontology
Already answered. With a cite. To educated the ignorant.
Now switch handles and pretend you already knew the answer.
Pandora isn't interested in discussing anything that grabs your fancy,
Then why'd you hit Reply?
Clearly you are not in control of your actions.
Oh. Look. You already had your answer about Feynman's relevance...
https://youtu.be/px_4TxC2mXU
There. Feynman.
I'm well into the video, but I hear nothing about plesiosaurs.
You are retarded.
Same stupidity, same lack of reading comprehension, same
narcissistic impulses to destroy what it can't control... different sock puppets.
How would you like for me to educate the ignorant about Exodus 21:22?
Pandora wrote:
[...]
I'll boil it down to incredibly simplistic terms and then later I can chuckle over your inability to grasp a word of it...
There were a lot of creatures running around during "Dinosaur" days that weren't dinosaurs. Some of them quite large. You've heard of the
plesiosaur, for example, swimming the ocean. They could be huge, they
were reptilian but they weren't dinosaurs. And in the skies we had pterosaurs. Again, some of them turning out to be quite large -- HUGE!
And also, btw, nobody calling them dinosaurs. So outside the autistic
world many are already comfortable with the idea that to be around
even in the Jurassic, to be big and to be reptile like doesn't require being a dinosaur.
IT'S MAGIC!
That's the answer you cling to.
Pterosaurs evolved because the sky is magical, stopping flying dinosaurs, right up until it didn't.
And the oceans, well, we all know the story there
even if we don't. Which leaves us with dry land and WE KNOW if it touched
dry land then DINOSAUR!
Or we can start looking at differences.
One screaming obvious difference so large that people in comas might
have difficulty missing would be what you pointed out: Warm blooded
vs. cold blooded. Some that people call "Dinosaurs" appear to have been
cold blooded, others look like they had to have been warm blooded.
But we don't have to stop there, not on our search for differences. What
we do have to remember, speaking rhetorically, is that we all already know that not all the big, reptilian like animals living back then were dinosaurs.
We can move on from there.
...because what you think of as "Science" was, for nearly all of its
history, the private playground of the privileged -- the cucumber sandwich crowd. They've always been obsessed with their own importance, with
authority -- STATUS -- which is why you are still ordered to worship the fraud that was Darwin, even though he was an ignorant plagiarist
whose one theory (Pangenesis) was pseudo scientific crap.
Oh, that's right, you're not aware of everything from Piltdown Man through Neanderthal "Different Species" onto savanna nonsense... even though all
of it -- including the Darwin fraud -- continues even today, even now.
"Things are different now, even though they're not."
Yes they got a lot wrong about dinosaurs and they defend all that idiocy
the same way they defend savanna bullshit.
Enjoy!
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/662184098294595584
I Envy JTEM wrote:
I'll boil it down to incredibly simplistic terms and then later I can chuckle
over your inability to grasp a word of it...
If you want some regular here to think anything in the next paragraph isn't old news to Pandora,
then
Pterosaurs evolved because the sky is magical, stopping flying dinosaurs, right up until it didn't.
If you are referring to
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
I Envy JTEM wrote:
I'll boil it down to incredibly simplistic terms and then later I can chuckle
over your inability to grasp a word of it...
If you want some regular here to think anything in the next paragraph isn't old news to Pandora,
then
Don't tell me, let me guess, I needed to invest a little time into explaining what "incredibly simplistic" means,
so it's my fault you're saying stupid
things now.
REMINDER: A lack of reading comprehension does NOT an argument make.
Pterosaurs evolved because the sky is magical, stopping flying dinosaurs, right up until it didn't.
If you are referring to
I could illustrate my words, ask grade school teachers to re-write them to a 3rd grade level and you'd still never "get it."
Please. You don't seem to comprehend words, much less their meaning.
I Envy JTEM wrote:
Don't tell me, let me guess, I needed to invest a little time into explaining
what "incredibly simplistic" means,
100% wrong. You
posted your incredibly simplistic paragraph because
And, just to save readers the trouble of scrolling up to an earlier post
On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 08:51:47 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:18:16 AM UTC-4, Pandora wrote:
You thought that a definition of dinosaurs would be complicated,
something typological requiring knowledge about their physiology, and
in need of refining, while it actually is quite simple. All you need
is a decent phylogeny, based on empirical data (taxa and their
characters), from which you can then choose one or more reference
taxa.
In the case of Dinosauria a theropod (Passer domesticus), ornithiscian
(Triceratops horridus) and sauropod (Diplodocus carnegii,
Why aren't you cutting it down to two: sauriscian and ornithiscian?
Is it because you have doubts about whether theropods are more closely related
to ornithiscians or to sauropods, and are hedging your bets either way?
Yes, see Baron et al. 2017, "A new hypothesis of dinosaur
relationships and early dinosaur evolution", their Ornithoscelida:
<https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-new-hypothesis-of-dinosaur-relationships-and-Baron-Norman/f03f6a706a883b18303e61b4cca6a56d942bf637>
See also reply from Langer et al. 2017, "Untangling the dinosaur
family tree":
<https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Untangling-the-dinosaur-family-tree-Langer-Ezcurra/8c8ff01b0526f76d1a98c88c01d1978c9de75614>
If not, why bother giving the most inclusive clade for the common pigeon? >Or a clade like avialae, which at least tells what Passer is for those who don't
recognize it as the genus of a bird?
It's the definition by Baron et al. See the paper for their
motivation.
I think it's a good idea that when a higher taxon contains extant
species one of those should be included as a specifier, preferably
first named by Linnaeus, for historical reasons.
And to get rid of the idea that dinosaurs are extinct.
together with a qualifier ("the least inclusive clade containing")).
What's the point of the qualifier?To indicate that it's not just a set of three species.
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
I Envy JTEM wrote:
Don't tell me, let me guess, I needed to invest a little time into explaining
what "incredibly simplistic" means,
100% wrong. YouI was speaking rhetorically.
Even now, even after pointing out your critical
stupidity you won't acknowledge it,
what "incredibly simplistic" means,
what it signified within the context of this thread.
posted your incredibly simplistic paragraph because
Now you think you're a mind reader?
Do your delusions know no bounds?
And, just to save readers the trouble of scrolling up to an earlier post
"NEVER look at source material!"
Wow. Pathetic.
The good
Pandora wrote:
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 1:13:50 PM UTC-4, Pandora wrote:
On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 08:51:47 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:18:16 AM UTC-4, Pandora wrote:
[To JTEM, who gave himself away by continuing to troll after the following reply]
You thought that a definition of dinosaurs would be complicated,
something typological requiring knowledge about their physiology, and
in need of refining, while it actually is quite simple. All you need
is a decent phylogeny, based on empirical data (taxa and their
characters), from which you can then choose one or more reference
taxa.
In the case of Dinosauria a theropod (Passer domesticus), ornithiscian
(Triceratops horridus) and sauropod (Diplodocus carnegii,
Why aren't you cutting it down to two: sauriscian and ornithiscian?
Is it because you have doubts about whether theropods are more closely related
to ornithiscians or to sauropods, and are hedging your bets either way?
Yes, see Baron et al. 2017, "A new hypothesis of dinosaur
relationships and early dinosaur evolution", their Ornithoscelida:
<https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-new-hypothesis-of-dinosaur-relationships-and-Baron-Norman/f03f6a706a883b18303e61b4cca6a56d942bf637>
Over in sci.bio.paleontology, John Harshman claimed that this had been superseded: flaws
in the methods were discovered, and better methods confirmed the age-old division.
This was over a year ago, so I can't recall what sources he used.
See also reply from Langer et al. 2017, "Untangling the dinosaur
family tree":
<https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Untangling-the-dinosaur-family-tree-Langer-Ezcurra/8c8ff01b0526f76d1a98c88c01d1978c9de75614>
Same here. Would you like for me to ask Harshman for the sources?
If not, why bother giving the most inclusive clade for the common pigeon? >> >Or a clade like avialae, which at least tells what Passer is for those who don't
recognize it as the genus of a bird?
It's the definition by Baron et al. See the paper for their
motivation.
I think it's a good idea that when a higher taxon contains extant
species one of those should be included as a specifier, preferably
first named by Linnaeus, for historical reasons.
That, I have no objection to.
And to get rid of the idea that dinosaurs are extinct.
To indicate that it's not just a set of three species.together with a qualifier ("the least inclusive clade containing")).
What's the point of the qualifier?
Didn't you mean to write "most inclusive clade" rather than "least inclusive clade"?
On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 11:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 1:13:50 PM UTC-4, Pandora wrote:
On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 08:51:47 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:18:16 AM UTC-4, Pandora wrote:
[To JTEM, who gave himself away by continuing to troll after the following reply]
You thought that a definition of dinosaurs would be complicated,
something typological requiring knowledge about their physiology, and >> >> in need of refining, while it actually is quite simple. All you need >> >> is a decent phylogeny, based on empirical data (taxa and their
characters), from which you can then choose one or more reference
taxa.
In the case of Dinosauria a theropod (Passer domesticus), ornithiscian >> >> (Triceratops horridus) and sauropod (Diplodocus carnegii,
Why aren't you cutting it down to two: sauriscian and ornithiscian?
Is it because you have doubts about whether theropods are more closely related
to ornithiscians or to sauropods, and are hedging your bets either way?
Yes, see Baron et al. 2017, "A new hypothesis of dinosaur
relationships and early dinosaur evolution", their Ornithoscelida:
<https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-new-hypothesis-of-dinosaur-relationships-and-Baron-Norman/f03f6a706a883b18303e61b4cca6a56d942bf637>
Over in sci.bio.paleontology, John Harshman claimed that this had been superseded: flaws
in the methods were discovered, and better methods confirmed the age-old division.
This was over a year ago, so I can't recall what sources he used.
See also reply from Langer et al. 2017, "Untangling the dinosaur
family tree":
<https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Untangling-the-dinosaur-family-tree-Langer-Ezcurra/8c8ff01b0526f76d1a98c88c01d1978c9de75614>
Same here. Would you like for me to ask Harshman for the sources?
Langer et al. are critical of Baron et al. and recover the traditional saurischian–ornithischian dichotomy, but weakly supported.
See brief communication arising for reply by Baron et al: https://staff.mef.org.ar/images/investigadores/diego_pol/papers/92.pdf
The definition using three specifiers remedies this uncertainty at the
base of the dinosaurian tree.
If not, why bother giving the most inclusive clade for the common pigeon? >>> >Or a clade like avialae, which at least tells what Passer is for those who don't
recognize it as the genus of a bird?
It's the definition by Baron et al. See the paper for their
motivation.
I think it's a good idea that when a higher taxon contains extant
species one of those should be included as a specifier, preferably
first named by Linnaeus, for historical reasons.
That, I have no objection to.
To indicate that it's not just a set of three species.And to get rid of the idea that dinosaurs are extinct.What's the point of the qualifier?
together with a qualifier ("the least inclusive clade containing")). >> >
Didn't you mean to write "most inclusive clade" rather than "least inclusive clade"?
No, Dinosauria as defined by Baron et al. is a node-based clade, not stem-based:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhyloCode#Phylogenetic_nomenclature
In the case of Dinosauria a theropod (Passer domesticus), ornithiscian >> >> (Triceratops horridus) and sauropod (Diplodocus carnegii,
On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 9:47:18 AM UTC-4, Pandora wrote:
On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 11:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 1:13:50 PM UTC-4, Pandora wrote:
On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 08:51:47 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:18:16 AM UTC-4, Pandora wrote:
[To JTEM, who gave himself away by continuing to troll after the following reply]
You thought that a definition of dinosaurs would be complicated,
something typological requiring knowledge about their physiology, and
in need of refining, while it actually is quite simple. All you need >> >> is a decent phylogeny, based on empirical data (taxa and their
characters), from which you can then choose one or more reference
taxa.
In the case of Dinosauria a theropod (Passer domesticus), ornithiscian
(Triceratops horridus) and sauropod (Diplodocus carnegii,
Why aren't you cutting it down to two: sauriscian and ornithiscian?
Is it because you have doubts about whether theropods are more closely related
to ornithiscians or to sauropods, and are hedging your bets either way?
Yes, see Baron et al. 2017, "A new hypothesis of dinosaur
relationships and early dinosaur evolution", their Ornithoscelida:
<https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-new-hypothesis-of-dinosaur-relationships-and-Baron-Norman/f03f6a706a883b18303e61b4cca6a56d942bf637>
Over in sci.bio.paleontology, John Harshman claimed that this had been superseded: flaws
in the methods were discovered, and better methods confirmed the age-old division.
This was over a year ago, so I can't recall what sources he used.
Dinosaur = dinosaur.See also reply from Langer et al. 2017, "Untangling the dinosaur
family tree":
<https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Untangling-the-dinosaur-family-tree-Langer-Ezcurra/8c8ff01b0526f76d1a98c88c01d1978c9de75614>
Harshman has withdrawn his earlier claim.Same here. Would you like for me to ask Harshman for the sources?
Langer et al. are critical of Baron et al. and recover the traditional saurischian–ornithischian dichotomy, but weakly supported.
See brief communication arising for reply by Baron et al: https://staff.mef.org.ar/images/investigadores/diego_pol/papers/92.pdf
The definition using three specifiers remedies this uncertainty at the base of the dinosaurian tree.I think "takes into account" is better than "remedies."
Speaking of which, what chance do you think the following 2020 article has of remedying it, in the sense of removing the uncertainty:
DOI:10.1098/rsbl.2020.0417Corpus ID: 221298572
A paraphyletic ‘Silesauridae' as an alternative hypothesis for the initial radiation of ornithischian dinosaurs
R. T. Müller, MaurÃcio S Garcia
If not, why bother giving the most inclusive clade for the common pigeon?
Or a clade like avialae, which at least tells what Passer is for those who don't
recognize it as the genus of a bird?
It's the definition by Baron et al. See the paper for their >>motivation.
I think it's a good idea that when a higher taxon contains extant
species one of those should be included as a specifier, preferably
first named by Linnaeus, for historical reasons.
That, I have no objection to.
To indicate that it's not just a set of three species.And to get rid of the idea that dinosaurs are extinct.What's the point of the qualifier?
together with a qualifier ("the least inclusive clade containing")). >> >
Didn't you mean to write "most inclusive clade" rather than "least inclusive clade"?
No, Dinosauria as defined by Baron et al. is a node-based clade, not stem-based:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhyloCode#Phylogenetic_nomenclatureIt looks like I misunderstood what you were referring to.
I wasn't referring to Dinosauria, but to your use of "theropod" in the sentence,
[reposted from above]
I do think these are the most inclusive clades that separate the three species, don't you?In the case of Dinosauria a theropod (Passer domesticus), ornithiscian
(Triceratops horridus) and sauropod (Diplodocus carnegii,
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
Univ. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer-- http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 9:47:18 AM UTC-4, Pandora wrote:
On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 11:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 1:13:50 PM UTC-4, Pandora wrote:
On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 08:51:47 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:18:16 AM UTC-4, Pandora wrote:
[To JTEM, who gave himself away by continuing to troll after the following reply]
Yes, see Baron et al. 2017, "A new hypothesis of dinosaurYou thought that a definition of dinosaurs would be complicated,
something typological requiring knowledge about their physiology, and >> >> >> in need of refining, while it actually is quite simple. All you need >> >> >> is a decent phylogeny, based on empirical data (taxa and their
characters), from which you can then choose one or more reference
taxa.
In the case of Dinosauria a theropod (Passer domesticus), ornithiscian >> >> >> (Triceratops horridus) and sauropod (Diplodocus carnegii,
Why aren't you cutting it down to two: sauriscian and ornithiscian?
Is it because you have doubts about whether theropods are more closely related
to ornithiscians or to sauropods, and are hedging your bets either way? >> >
relationships and early dinosaur evolution", their Ornithoscelida:
<https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-new-hypothesis-of-dinosaur-relationships-and-Baron-Norman/f03f6a706a883b18303e61b4cca6a56d942bf637>
Over in sci.bio.paleontology, John Harshman claimed that this had been superseded: flaws
in the methods were discovered, and better methods confirmed the age-old division.
This was over a year ago, so I can't recall what sources he used.
See also reply from Langer et al. 2017, "Untangling the dinosaur
family tree":
<https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Untangling-the-dinosaur-family-tree-Langer-Ezcurra/8c8ff01b0526f76d1a98c88c01d1978c9de75614>
Same here. Would you like for me to ask Harshman for the sources?
Harshman has withdrawn his earlier claim.
Langer et al. are critical of Baron et al. and recover the traditional
saurischian–ornithischian dichotomy, but weakly supported.
See brief communication arising for reply by Baron et al:
https://staff.mef.org.ar/images/investigadores/diego_pol/papers/92.pdf
The definition using three specifiers remedies this uncertainty at the
base of the dinosaurian tree.
I think "takes into account" is better than "remedies."
Speaking of which, what chance do you think the following 2020 article has
of remedying it, in the sense of removing the uncertainty:
DOI:10.1098/rsbl.2020.0417Corpus ID: 221298572
A paraphyletic ‘Silesauridae' as an alternative hypothesis for the initial radiation of ornithischian dinosaurs
R. T. Müller, Maurício S Garcia
If not, why bother giving the most inclusive clade for the common pigeon? >>>> >Or a clade like avialae, which at least tells what Passer is for those who don't
recognize it as the genus of a bird?
It's the definition by Baron et al. See the paper for their
motivation.
I think it's a good idea that when a higher taxon contains extant
species one of those should be included as a specifier, preferably
first named by Linnaeus, for historical reasons.
That, I have no objection to.
To indicate that it's not just a set of three species.And to get rid of the idea that dinosaurs are extinct.What's the point of the qualifier?
together with a qualifier ("the least inclusive clade containing")). >> >> >
Didn't you mean to write "most inclusive clade" rather than "least inclusive clade"?
No, Dinosauria as defined by Baron et al. is a node-based clade, not
stem-based:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhyloCode#Phylogenetic_nomenclature
It looks like I misunderstood what you were referring to.
I wasn't referring to Dinosauria, but to your use of "theropod" in the sentence,
[reposted from above]
In the case of Dinosauria a theropod (Passer domesticus), ornithiscian >> >> >> (Triceratops horridus) and sauropod (Diplodocus carnegii,
I do think these are the most inclusive clades that separate the three species, don't you?
Now, how do we define the human clade?
Hominina: the most inclusive clade that contains Sahelanthropus
tchadensis Brunet et al. 2002 and Homo sapiens Linnaeus 1758, but not
Pan troglodytes (Blumenbach, 1775).
Reference phylogeny: Mongle et al. 2019, fig.2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.006
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S004724841830143X-gr2.jpg
What are the diagnostic apomorphies?
And here, with Pandora switching to on-topic comments and questions for s.a.p.,
I follow suit.
On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 6:09:50 AM UTC-4, Pandora wrote:
Now, how do we define the human clade?
Hominina: the most inclusive clade that contains Sahelanthropus
tchadensis Brunet et al. 2002 and Homo sapiens Linnaeus 1758, but not
Pan troglodytes (Blumenbach, 1775).
I agree. I wouldn't put the split further back, barring new discoveries with >distinctly non-Pan, "progressively human" features.
As you probably know, there is a minority opinion here that
Pan and possibly even Gorilla are descended from Australopithecines,
probably based on the total absence of non-hominina hominids
from the fossil record that go back beyond 1 mya.
It may still be true that the one fossil that goes back that far
is a single tooth attributed to a chimp. So this gives the
heterodox participants [and anthropologists in the big outside world]
a nearly impregnable citadel to defend.
Reference phylogeny: Mongle et al. 2019, fig.2.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.006
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S004724841830143X-gr2.jpg
What are the diagnostic apomorphies?
That, I do not know. Have you tried contacting the authors about it?
I keep discussing the topic the much of the time, as do two other participants, unlike here where JTEM
almost derailed the thread.
Hominina: the most inclusive clade that contains Sahelanthropus
tchadensis Brunet et al. 2002 and Homo sapiens Linnaeus 1758, but not
Pan troglodytes (Blumenbach, 1775).
I agree. I wouldn't put the split further back, barring new discoveries with distinctly non-Pan, "progressively human" features.
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
I keep discussing the topic the much of the time, as do two other participants, unlike here where JTEM
almost derailed the thread. There are digressions into other topics, but they are also on-topic for s.b.p.
I pointed out that they're not dinosaurs,
On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 6:09:50 AM UTC-4, Pandora wrote:
Hominina: the most inclusive clade that contains Sahelanthropus tchadensis Brunet et al. 2002 and Homo sapiens Linnaeus 1758, but not
Pan troglodytes (Blumenbach, 1775).
I agree. I wouldn't put the split further back, barring new discoveries with
distinctly non-Pan, "progressively human" features.
You already put it too far back. The split with Pan was much more recent
than Sahelanthropus
The oldest Pan fossil is, what, HALF a million years old.
...and Daud, availing himself of the Humpty Dumpty Prerogative, "countered" that with "Note Title, dino, not dinosaur."
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 59:30:15 |
| Calls: | 6,653 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 12,200 |
| Messages: | 5,331,283 |
