On 9/8/22 9:53 AM, John Harshman wrote:

On 9/8/22 6:59 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:55:52 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

On 8/30/22 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

More importantly, the article in question is a legitimate
contribution to the paleontology literature,

How do you know? Did you investigate the matrix (or matrices?) that

Mortimer and co.

used to generate their phylogenetic trees in Fig. 17 and Fig. 18?

No. I just read the paper. Did you?

I've read enough of it to see two deficiencies and several peculiar

details.
Which of those details is relevant to whether the article is a
legitimate contribution, and if so, why?

Do you disagree?

Yes. To begin with, a simple scan shows that they nowhere mention

which taxon

they used to root the tree. Very sloppy writing, refereeing, and

editing is to blame, wouldn't you say?
Not true. The outgroup to Maniraptoromorpha is stated to be a large
selection of taxa, with Dilophosaurus as the ultimate outgroup.

Just above Fig. 17 is the following sentence:

"As *Ornitholestes* has never been recovered as a tyrannosauroid it

is considered the most basal well supported member of Maniraptoromorpha here."

And yet, Ornitholestes appears neither in Fig. 17 nor Fig. 18. Their

trees apparently don't

show the breadth of Maniraptoromorpha. More sloppiness.

That's because as stated those figures were pruned to emphasize
important stuff. For the full tree, see F

ig. S2.>

Also, to a layman like me, it seems peculiar that they would use 700

characters,

and claim that their choice is better than that of Maryanska et. al.,
and yet it takes so little change to make some pretty big shifts.

Not clear what part of that seems peculiar. But the last bit is a
problem that's common to trees using paleontological data. It results
from the limited information in skeletal characters and the large amount
of missing data even for skeletal characters.

"A Deinonychosauria including troodontids and dromaeosaurids was

recovered as in many recent analyses. Positioning troodontids closer to
Aves than dromaeosaurids only requires a single additional step, but non-eumaniraptoran troodontids are less parsimonious at six more steps. Scansoriopterygids form the first branch of Avialae, matching their stratigraphic placement, and constraining them as basal paravians
instead is only one step longer. Their other suggested position as oviraptorosaurs requires 12 more steps though, so is unlikely. While Pedopenna emerges as a scansoriopterygid in the MPTs, one step moves the fragmentary specimen to Archaeopterygidae instead. The juvenile
Zhongornis branches next, with alternative positions in
Scansoriopterygidae or Confuciusornithiformes being four and five steps longer respectively."

The placement of the enigmatic Scansoriopterygids has been highly

varied. Check out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scansoriopterygidae
The only tree it shows puts them well outside Avialae, and above the

tree there is a long

discussion of numerous other analyses.

Not sure of your point. Are you claiming that we should judge a
phylogeny on the basis of whether it's represented in Wikipedia?

I suggest you compare the Mortimer et.al. matrix with one or more of

the ones

among the analyses listed.

The proper citation, incidentally, is "Hartman et al.". And haven't the authors done that comparison already? See Fig. S1. I also note that the legitimacy of all this is enhanced, if any such were necessary, by my observation that the editor was Hans-Dieter Sues.

I ask again: what, if any of this, is relevant to the question that
began the post?

Having posting problems. This is a test.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/8/22 6:59 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:55:52 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

On 8/30/22 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

More importantly, the article in question is a legitimate
contribution to the paleontology literature,

How do you know? Did you investigate the matrix (or matrices?) that Mortimer and co.
used to generate their phylogenetic trees in Fig. 17 and Fig. 18?

No. I just read the paper. Did you?

I've read enough of it to see two deficiencies and several peculiar

details.
Which of those details is relevant to whether the article is a
legitimate contribution, and if so, why?

Do you disagree?

Yes. To begin with, a simple scan shows that they nowhere mention

which taxon

they used to root the tree. Very sloppy writing, refereeing, and

editing is to blame, wouldn't you say?
Not true. The outgroup to Maniraptoromorpha is stated to be a large
selection of taxa, with Dilophosaurus as the ultimate outgroup.

Just above Fig. 17 is the following sentence:

"As *Ornitholestes* has never been recovered as a tyrannosauroid it

is considered the most basal well supported member of Maniraptoromorpha
here."

And yet, Ornitholestes appears neither in Fig. 17 nor Fig. 18. Their

trees apparently don't

show the breadth of Maniraptoromorpha. More sloppiness.

That's because as stated those figures were pruned to emphasize
important stuff. For the full tree, see F

ig. S2.>

Also, to a layman like me, it seems peculiar that they would use 700

characters,

and claim that their choice is better than that of Maryanska et. al.,
and yet it takes so little change to make some pretty big shifts.

Not clear what part of that seems peculiar. But the last bit is a
problem that's common to trees using paleontological data. It results
from the limited information in skeletal characters and the large amount
of missing data even for skeletal characters.

"A Deinonychosauria including troodontids and dromaeosaurids was

recovered as in many recent analyses. Positioning troodontids closer to
Aves than dromaeosaurids only requires a single additional step, but non-eumaniraptoran troodontids are less parsimonious at six more steps. Scansoriopterygids form the first branch of Avialae, matching their stratigraphic placement, and constraining them as basal paravians
instead is only one step longer. Their other suggested position as oviraptorosaurs requires 12 more steps though, so is unlikely. While
Pedopenna emerges as a scansoriopterygid in the MPTs, one step moves the fragmentary specimen to Archaeopterygidae instead. The juvenile
Zhongornis branches next, with alternative positions in
Scansoriopterygidae or Confuciusornithiformes being four and five steps
longer respectively."

The placement of the enigmatic Scansoriopterygids has been highly

varied. Check out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scansoriopterygidae
The only tree it shows puts them well outside Avialae, and above the

tree there is a long

discussion of numerous other analyses.

Not sure of your point. Are you claiming that we should judge a
phylogeny on the basis of whether it's represented in Wikipedia?

I suggest you compare the Mortimer et.al. matrix with one or more of

the ones

among the analyses listed.

The proper citation, incidentally, is "Hartman et al.". And haven't the
authors done that comparison already? See Fig. S1. I also note that the legitimacy of all this is enhanced, if any such were necessary, by my observation that the editor was Hans-Dieter Sues.

I ask again: what, if any of this, is relevant to the question that
began the post?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/8/22 9:53 AM, John Harshman wrote:

On 9/8/22 9:53 AM, John Harshman wrote:

On 9/8/22 6:59 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:55:52 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

On 8/30/22 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

More importantly, the article in question is a legitimate
contribution to the paleontology literature,

How do you know? Did you investigate the matrix (or matrices?) that

Mortimer and co.

used to generate their phylogenetic trees in Fig. 17 and Fig. 18?

No. I just read the paper. Did you?

I've read enough of it to see two deficiencies and several peculiar

details.
Which of those details is relevant to whether the article is a
legitimate contribution, and if so, why?

Do you disagree?

Yes. To begin with, a simple scan shows that they nowhere mention

which taxon

they used to root the tree. Very sloppy writing, refereeing, and

editing is to blame, wouldn't you say?
Not true. The outgroup to Maniraptoromorpha is stated to be a large
selection of taxa, with Dilophosaurus as the ultimate outgroup.

Just above Fig. 17 is the following sentence:

"As *Ornitholestes* has never been recovered as a tyrannosauroid it

is considered the most basal well supported member of
Maniraptoromorpha here."

And yet, Ornitholestes appears neither in Fig. 17 nor Fig. 18. Their

trees apparently don't

show the breadth of Maniraptoromorpha. More sloppiness.

That's because as stated those figures were pruned to emphasize
important stuff. For the full tree, see F

ig. S2.>

Also, to a layman like me, it seems peculiar that they would use 700

characters,

and claim that their choice is better than that of Maryanska et. al.,
and yet it takes so little change to make some pretty big shifts.

Not clear what part of that seems peculiar. But the last bit is a
problem that's common to trees using paleontological data. It results
from the limited information in skeletal characters and the large
amount of missing data even for skeletal characters.

"A Deinonychosauria including troodontids and dromaeosaurids was

recovered as in many recent analyses. Positioning troodontids closer
to Aves than dromaeosaurids only requires a single additional step,
but non-eumaniraptoran troodontids are less parsimonious at six more
steps. Scansoriopterygids form the first branch of Avialae, matching
their stratigraphic placement, and constraining them as basal
paravians instead is only one step longer. Their other suggested
position as oviraptorosaurs requires 12 more steps though, so is
unlikely. While Pedopenna emerges as a scansoriopterygid in the MPTs,
one step moves the fragmentary specimen to Archaeopterygidae instead.
The juvenile Zhongornis branches next, with alternative positions in
Scansoriopterygidae or Confuciusornithiformes being four and five
steps longer respectively."

The placement of the enigmatic Scansoriopterygids has been highly

varied. Check out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scansoriopterygidae
The only tree it shows puts them well outside Avialae, and above the

tree there is a long

discussion of numerous other analyses.

Not sure of your point. Are you claiming that we should judge a
phylogeny on the basis of whether it's represented in Wikipedia?

I suggest you compare the Mortimer et.al. matrix with one or more of

the ones

among the analyses listed.

The proper citation, incidentally, is "Hartman et al.". And haven't
the authors done that comparison already? See Fig. S1. I also note
that the legitimacy of all this is enhanced, if any such were
necessary, by my observation that the editor was Hans-Dieter Sues.

I ask again: what, if any of this, is relevant to the question that
began the post?

Having posting problems. This is a test.

And another test. Mind you, the first bit was also a real reply, the
only one I was able to get through.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/8/22 9:54 AM, John Harshman wrote:

On 9/8/22 9:53 AM, John Harshman wrote:

On 9/8/22 9:53 AM, John Harshman wrote:

On 9/8/22 6:59 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:55:52 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>> On 8/30/22 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>

More importantly, the article in question is a legitimate
contribution to the paleontology literature,

How do you know? Did you investigate the matrix (or matrices?) that

Mortimer and co.

used to generate their phylogenetic trees in Fig. 17 and Fig. 18?

No. I just read the paper. Did you?

I've read enough of it to see two deficiencies and several peculiar

details.
Which of those details is relevant to whether the article is a
legitimate contribution, and if so, why?

Do you disagree?

Yes. To begin with, a simple scan shows that they nowhere mention

which taxon

they used to root the tree. Very sloppy writing, refereeing, and

editing is to blame, wouldn't you say?
Not true. The outgroup to Maniraptoromorpha is stated to be a large
selection of taxa, with Dilophosaurus as the ultimate outgroup.

Just above Fig. 17 is the following sentence:

"As *Ornitholestes* has never been recovered as a tyrannosauroid it

is considered the most basal well supported member of
Maniraptoromorpha here."

And yet, Ornitholestes appears neither in Fig. 17 nor Fig. 18. Their

trees apparently don't

show the breadth of Maniraptoromorpha. More sloppiness.

That's because as stated those figures were pruned to emphasize
important stuff. For the full tree, see F

ig. S2.>

Also, to a layman like me, it seems peculiar that they would use 700

characters,

and claim that their choice is better than that of Maryanska et. al.,
and yet it takes so little change to make some pretty big shifts.

Not clear what part of that seems peculiar. But the last bit is a
problem that's common to trees using paleontological data. It results
from the limited information in skeletal characters and the large
amount of missing data even for skeletal characters.

"A Deinonychosauria including troodontids and dromaeosaurids was

recovered as in many recent analyses. Positioning troodontids closer
to Aves than dromaeosaurids only requires a single additional step,
but non-eumaniraptoran troodontids are less parsimonious at six more
steps. Scansoriopterygids form the first branch of Avialae, matching
their stratigraphic placement, and constraining them as basal
paravians instead is only one step longer. Their other suggested
position as oviraptorosaurs requires 12 more steps though, so is
unlikely. While Pedopenna emerges as a scansoriopterygid in the MPTs,
one step moves the fragmentary specimen to Archaeopterygidae instead.
The juvenile Zhongornis branches next, with alternative positions in
Scansoriopterygidae or Confuciusornithiformes being four and five
steps longer respectively."

The placement of the enigmatic Scansoriopterygids has been highly

varied. Check out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scansoriopterygidae
The only tree it shows puts them well outside Avialae, and above the

tree there is a long

discussion of numerous other analyses.

Not sure of your point. Are you claiming that we should judge a
phylogeny on the basis of whether it's represented in Wikipedia?

I suggest you compare the Mortimer et.al. matrix with one or more of

the ones

among the analyses listed.

The proper citation, incidentally, is "Hartman et al.". And haven't
the authors done that comparison already? See Fig. S1. I also note
that the legitimacy of all this is enhanced, if any such were
necessary, by my observation that the editor was Hans-Dieter Sues.

I ask again: what, if any of this, is relevant to the question that
began the post?

Having posting problems. This is a test.

And another test. Mind you, the first bit was also a real reply, the
only one I was able to get through.

It's another test.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/8/22 9:53 AM, John Harshman wrote:

On 9/8/22 6:59 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:55:52 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

On 8/30/22 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

More importantly, the article in question is a legitimate
contribution to the paleontology literature,

How do you know? Did you investigate the matrix (or matrices?) that

Mortimer and co.

used to generate their phylogenetic trees in Fig. 17 and Fig. 18?

No. I just read the paper. Did you?

I've read enough of it to see two deficiencies and several peculiar

details.
Which of those details is relevant to whether the article is a
legitimate contribution, and if so, why?

Do you disagree?

Yes. To begin with, a simple scan shows that they nowhere mention

which taxon

they used to root the tree. Very sloppy writing, refereeing, and

editing is to blame, wouldn't you say?
Not true. The outgroup to Maniraptoromorpha is stated to be a large
selection of taxa, with Dilophosaurus as the ultimate outgroup.

Just above Fig. 17 is the following sentence:

"As *Ornitholestes* has never been recovered as a tyrannosauroid it

is considered the most basal well supported member of Maniraptoromorpha here."

And yet, Ornitholestes appears neither in Fig. 17 nor Fig. 18. Their

trees apparently don't

show the breadth of Maniraptoromorpha. More sloppiness.

That's because as stated those figures were pruned to emphasize
important stuff. For the full tree, see F

ig. S2.>

Also, to a layman like me, it seems peculiar that they would use 700

characters,

and claim that their choice is better than that of Maryanska et. al.,
and yet it takes so little change to make some pretty big shifts.

Not clear what part of that seems peculiar. But the last bit is a
problem that's common to trees using paleontological data. It results
from the limited information in skeletal characters and the large amount
of missing data even for skeletal characters.

"A Deinonychosauria including troodontids and dromaeosaurids was

recovered as in many recent analyses. Positioning troodontids closer to
Aves than dromaeosaurids only requires a single additional step, but non-eumaniraptoran troodontids are less parsimonious at six more steps. Scansoriopterygids form the first branch of Avialae, matching their stratigraphic placement, and constraining them as basal paravians
instead is only one step longer. Their other suggested position as oviraptorosaurs requires 12 more steps though, so is unlikely. While Pedopenna emerges as a scansoriopterygid in the MPTs, one step moves the fragmentary specimen to Archaeopterygidae instead. The juvenile
Zhongornis branches next, with alternative positions in
Scansoriopterygidae or Confuciusornithiformes being four and five steps longer respectively."

The placement of the enigmatic Scansoriopterygids has been highly

varied. Check out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scansoriopterygidae
The only tree it shows puts them well outside Avialae, and above the

tree there is a long

discussion of numerous other analyses.

Not sure of your point. Are you claiming that we should judge a
phylogeny on the basis of whether it's represented in Wikipedia?

I suggest you compare the Mortimer et.al. matrix with one or more of

the ones

among the analyses listed.

The proper citation, incidentally, is "Hartman et al.". And haven't the authors done that comparison already? See Fig. S1. I also note that the legitimacy of all this is enhanced, if any such were necessary, by my observation that the editor was Hans-Dieter Sues.

I ask again: what, if any of this, is relevant to the question that
began the post?

On 9/8/22 6:59 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:55:52 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

On 8/30/22 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

More importantly, the article in question is a legitimate
contribution to the paleontology literature,

How do you know? Did you investigate the matrix (or matrices?) that Mortimer and co.
used to generate their phylogenetic trees in Fig. 17 and Fig. 18?

No. I just read the paper. Did you?

I've read enough of it to see two deficiencies and several peculiar

details.
Which of those details is relevant to whether the article is a
legitimate contribution, and if so, why?

Do you disagree?

Yes. To begin with, a simple scan shows that they nowhere mention

which taxon

they used to root the tree. Very sloppy writing, refereeing, and

editing is to blame, wouldn't you say?
Not true. The outgroup to Maniraptoromorpha is stated to be a large
selection of taxa, with Dilophosaurus as the ultimate outgroup.

Just above Fig. 17 is the following sentence:

"As *Ornitholestes* has never been recovered as a tyrannosauroid it

is considered the most basal well supported member of Maniraptoromorpha
here."

And yet, Ornitholestes appears neither in Fig. 17 nor Fig. 18. Their

trees apparently don't

show the breadth of Maniraptoromorpha. More sloppiness.

That's because as stated those figures were pruned to emphasize
important stuff. For the full tree, see F

ig. S2.>

Also, to a layman like me, it seems peculiar that they would use 700

characters,

and claim that their choice is better than that of Maryanska et. al.,
and yet it takes so little change to make some pretty big shifts.

Not clear what part of that seems peculiar. But the last bit is a
problem that's common to trees using paleontological data. It results
from the limited information in skeletal characters and the large amount
of missing data even for skeletal characters.

"A Deinonychosauria including troodontids and dromaeosaurids was

recovered as in many recent analyses. Positioning troodontids closer to
Aves than dromaeosaurids only requires a single additional step, but non-eumaniraptoran troodontids are less parsimonious at six more steps. Scansoriopterygids form the first branch of Avialae, matching their stratigraphic placement, and constraining them as basal paravians
instead is only one step longer. Their other suggested position as oviraptorosaurs requires 12 more steps though, so is unlikely. While
Pedopenna emerges as a scansoriopterygid in the MPTs, one step moves the fragmentary specimen to Archaeopterygidae instead. The juvenile
Zhongornis branches next, with alternative positions in
Scansoriopterygidae or Confuciusornithiformes being four and five steps
longer respectively."

The placement of the enigmatic Scansoriopterygids has been highly

varied. Check out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scansoriopterygidae
The only tree it shows puts them well outside Avialae, and above the

tree there is a long

discussion of numerous other analyses.

Not sure of your point. Are you claiming that we should judge a
phylogeny on the basis of whether it's represented in Wikipedia?

I suggest you compare the Mortimer et.al. matrix with one or more of

the ones

among the analyses listed.

The proper citation, incidentally, is "Hartman et al.". And haven't the
authors done that comparison already? See Fig. S1. I also note that the legitimacy of all this is enhanced, if any such were necessary, by my observation that the editor was Hans-Dieter Sues.

I ask again: what, if any of this, is relevant to the question that
began the post?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/8/22 9:53 AM, John Harshman wrote:

On 9/8/22 6:59 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:55:52 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

On 8/30/22 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

More importantly, the article in question is a legitimate
contribution to the paleontology literature,

How do you know? Did you investigate the matrix (or matrices?) that

Mortimer and co.

used to generate their phylogenetic trees in Fig. 17 and Fig. 18?

No. I just read the paper. Did you?

I've read enough of it to see two deficiencies and several peculiar

details.
Which of those details is relevant to whether the article is a
legitimate contribution, and if so, why?

Do you disagree?

Yes. To begin with, a simple scan shows that they nowhere mention

which taxon

they used to root the tree. Very sloppy writing, refereeing, and

editing is to blame, wouldn't you say?
Not true. The outgroup to Maniraptoromorpha is stated to be a large
selection of taxa, with Dilophosaurus as the ultimate outgroup.

Just above Fig. 17 is the following sentence:

"As *Ornitholestes* has never been recovered as a tyrannosauroid it

is considered the most basal well supported member of Maniraptoromorpha here."

And yet, Ornitholestes appears neither in Fig. 17 nor Fig. 18. Their

trees apparently don't

show the breadth of Maniraptoromorpha. More sloppiness.

That's because as stated those figures were pruned to emphasize
important stuff. For the full tree, see F

ig. S2.>

Also, to a layman like me, it seems peculiar that they would use 700

characters,

and claim that their choice is better than that of Maryanska et. al.,
and yet it takes so little change to make some pretty big shifts.

Not clear what part of that seems peculiar. But the last bit is a
problem that's common to trees using paleontological data. It results
from the limited information in skeletal characters and the large amount
of missing data even for skeletal characters.

"A Deinonychosauria including troodontids and dromaeosaurids was

recovered as in many recent analyses. Positioning troodontids closer to
Aves than dromaeosaurids only requires a single additional step, but non-eumaniraptoran troodontids are less parsimonious at six more steps. Scansoriopterygids form the first branch of Avialae, matching their stratigraphic placement, and constraining them as basal paravians
instead is only one step longer. Their other suggested position as oviraptorosaurs requires 12 more steps though, so is unlikely. While Pedopenna emerges as a scansoriopterygid in the MPTs, one step moves the fragmentary specimen to Archaeopterygidae instead. The juvenile
Zhongornis branches next, with alternative positions in
Scansoriopterygidae or Confuciusornithiformes being four and five steps longer respectively."

The placement of the enigmatic Scansoriopterygids has been highly

varied. Check out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scansoriopterygidae
The only tree it shows puts them well outside Avialae, and above the

tree there is a long

discussion of numerous other analyses.

Not sure of your point. Are you claiming that we should judge a
phylogeny on the basis of whether it's represented in Wikipedia?

I suggest you compare the Mortimer et.al. matrix with one or more of

the ones

among the analyses listed.

The proper citation, incidentally, is "Hartman et al.". And haven't the authors done that comparison already? See Fig. S1. I also note that the legitimacy of all this is enhanced, if any such were necessary, by my observation that the editor was Hans-Dieter Sues.

I ask again: what, if any of this, is relevant to the question that
began the post?

Yes, more testing.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 4:55:34 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

On 9/8/22 9:53 AM, John Harshman wrote:

On 9/8/22 6:59 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:55:52 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

On 8/30/22 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

More importantly, the article in question is a legitimate
contribution to the paleontology literature,

How do you know? Did you investigate the matrix (or matrices?) that

Mortimer and co.

used to generate their phylogenetic trees in Fig. 17 and Fig. 18?

No. I just read the paper. Did you?

I've read enough of it to see two deficiencies and several peculiar

details.
Which of those details is relevant to whether the article is a
legitimate contribution, and if so, why?

Do you disagree?

Yes. To begin with, a simple scan shows that they nowhere mention

which taxon

they used to root the tree. Very sloppy writing, refereeing, and

editing is to blame, wouldn't you say?
Not true. The outgroup to Maniraptoromorpha is stated to be a large selection of taxa, with Dilophosaurus as the ultimate outgroup.

Just above Fig. 17 is the following sentence:

"As *Ornitholestes* has never been recovered as a tyrannosauroid it

is considered the most basal well supported member of Maniraptoromorpha here."

And yet, Ornitholestes appears neither in Fig. 17 nor Fig. 18. Their

trees apparently don't

show the breadth of Maniraptoromorpha. More sloppiness.

That's because as stated those figures were pruned to emphasize
important stuff. For the full tree, see F

ig. S2.>

Also, to a layman like me, it seems peculiar that they would use 700

characters,

and claim that their choice is better than that of Maryanska et. al.,
and yet it takes so little change to make some pretty big shifts.

Not clear what part of that seems peculiar. But the last bit is a
problem that's common to trees using paleontological data. It results
from the limited information in skeletal characters and the large amount
of missing data even for skeletal characters.

"A Deinonychosauria including troodontids and dromaeosaurids was

recovered as in many recent analyses. Positioning troodontids closer to Aves than dromaeosaurids only requires a single additional step, but non-eumaniraptoran troodontids are less parsimonious at six more steps. Scansoriopterygids form the first branch of Avialae, matching their stratigraphic placement, and constraining them as basal paravians
instead is only one step longer. Their other suggested position as oviraptorosaurs requires 12 more steps though, so is unlikely. While Pedopenna emerges as a scansoriopterygid in the MPTs, one step moves the fragmentary specimen to Archaeopterygidae instead. The juvenile
Zhongornis branches next, with alternative positions in
Scansoriopterygidae or Confuciusornithiformes being four and five steps longer respectively."

The placement of the enigmatic Scansoriopterygids has been highly

varied. Check out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scansoriopterygidae
The only tree it shows puts them well outside Avialae, and above the

tree there is a long

discussion of numerous other analyses.

Not sure of your point. Are you claiming that we should judge a
phylogeny on the basis of whether it's represented in Wikipedia?

I suggest you compare the Mortimer et.al. matrix with one or more of

the ones

among the analyses listed.

The proper citation, incidentally, is "Hartman et al.". And haven't the authors done that comparison already? See Fig. S1. I also note that the legitimacy of all this is enhanced, if any such were necessary, by my observation that the editor was Hans-Dieter Sues.

I ask again: what, if any of this, is relevant to the question that
began the post?

On 9/8/22 6:59 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:55:52 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

On 8/30/22 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

More importantly, the article in question is a legitimate
contribution to the paleontology literature,

How do you know? Did you investigate the matrix (or matrices?) that Mortimer and co.
used to generate their phylogenetic trees in Fig. 17 and Fig. 18?

No. I just read the paper. Did you?

I've read enough of it to see two deficiencies and several peculiar

details.
Which of those details is relevant to whether the article is a
legitimate contribution, and if so, why?

Do you disagree?

Yes. To begin with, a simple scan shows that they nowhere mention

which taxon

they used to root the tree. Very sloppy writing, refereeing, and

editing is to blame, wouldn't you say?
Not true. The outgroup to Maniraptoromorpha is stated to be a large
selection of taxa, with Dilophosaurus as the ultimate outgroup.

Just above Fig. 17 is the following sentence:

"As *Ornitholestes* has never been recovered as a tyrannosauroid it

is considered the most basal well supported member of Maniraptoromorpha here."

And yet, Ornitholestes appears neither in Fig. 17 nor Fig. 18. Their

trees apparently don't

show the breadth of Maniraptoromorpha. More sloppiness.

That's because as stated those figures were pruned to emphasize
important stuff. For the full tree, see F

ig. S2.>

Also, to a layman like me, it seems peculiar that they would use 700

characters,

and claim that their choice is better than that of Maryanska et. al.,
and yet it takes so little change to make some pretty big shifts.

Not clear what part of that seems peculiar. But the last bit is a
problem that's common to trees using paleontological data. It results
from the limited information in skeletal characters and the large amount
of missing data even for skeletal characters.

"A Deinonychosauria including troodontids and dromaeosaurids was

recovered as in many recent analyses. Positioning troodontids closer to
Aves than dromaeosaurids only requires a single additional step, but non-eumaniraptoran troodontids are less parsimonious at six more steps. Scansoriopterygids form the first branch of Avialae, matching their stratigraphic placement, and constraining them as basal paravians
instead is only one step longer. Their other suggested position as oviraptorosaurs requires 12 more steps though, so is unlikely. While Pedopenna emerges as a scansoriopterygid in the MPTs, one step moves the fragmentary specimen to Archaeopterygidae instead. The juvenile
Zhongornis branches next, with alternative positions in
Scansoriopterygidae or Confuciusornithiformes being four and five steps longer respectively."

The placement of the enigmatic Scansoriopterygids has been highly

varied. Check out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scansoriopterygidae
The only tree it shows puts them well outside Avialae, and above the

tree there is a long

discussion of numerous other analyses.

Not sure of your point. Are you claiming that we should judge a
phylogeny on the basis of whether it's represented in Wikipedia?

I suggest you compare the Mortimer et.al. matrix with one or more of

the ones

among the analyses listed.

The proper citation, incidentally, is "Hartman et al.". And haven't the authors done that comparison already? See Fig. S1. I also note that the legitimacy of all this is enhanced, if any such were necessary, by my observation that the editor was Hans-Dieter Sues.

I ask again: what, if any of this, is relevant to the question that
began the post?

'
This is the fifth of five tests that you did in replies to your OP or replies to replies....
Six posts on the 8th of September.
Couldn't you have done any of them on the original thread?
That's where I've been looking for a reply for the last five days.
Or you could have told me about your tests in the "False Dichotomy..."
thread where we communicated until well into Friday.


Peter Nyikos

PS Memo to self: look at the table of contents for s.b.p. three days out of every five.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/12/22 7:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 4:55:34 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

On 9/8/22 9:53 AM, John Harshman wrote:

On 9/8/22 6:59 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:55:52 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>> On 8/30/22 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>

More importantly, the article in question is a legitimate
contribution to the paleontology literature,

How do you know? Did you investigate the matrix (or matrices?) that

Mortimer and co.

used to generate their phylogenetic trees in Fig. 17 and Fig. 18?

No. I just read the paper. Did you?

I've read enough of it to see two deficiencies and several peculiar

details.
Which of those details is relevant to whether the article is a
legitimate contribution, and if so, why?

Do you disagree?

Yes. To begin with, a simple scan shows that they nowhere mention

which taxon

they used to root the tree. Very sloppy writing, refereeing, and

editing is to blame, wouldn't you say?
Not true. The outgroup to Maniraptoromorpha is stated to be a large
selection of taxa, with Dilophosaurus as the ultimate outgroup.

Just above Fig. 17 is the following sentence:

"As *Ornitholestes* has never been recovered as a tyrannosauroid it

is considered the most basal well supported member of Maniraptoromorpha
here."

And yet, Ornitholestes appears neither in Fig. 17 nor Fig. 18. Their

trees apparently don't

show the breadth of Maniraptoromorpha. More sloppiness.

That's because as stated those figures were pruned to emphasize
important stuff. For the full tree, see F

ig. S2.>

Also, to a layman like me, it seems peculiar that they would use 700

characters,

and claim that their choice is better than that of Maryanska et. al.,
and yet it takes so little change to make some pretty big shifts.

Not clear what part of that seems peculiar. But the last bit is a
problem that's common to trees using paleontological data. It results
from the limited information in skeletal characters and the large amount >>> of missing data even for skeletal characters.

"A Deinonychosauria including troodontids and dromaeosaurids was

recovered as in many recent analyses. Positioning troodontids closer to
Aves than dromaeosaurids only requires a single additional step, but
non-eumaniraptoran troodontids are less parsimonious at six more steps.
Scansoriopterygids form the first branch of Avialae, matching their
stratigraphic placement, and constraining them as basal paravians
instead is only one step longer. Their other suggested position as
oviraptorosaurs requires 12 more steps though, so is unlikely. While
Pedopenna emerges as a scansoriopterygid in the MPTs, one step moves the >>> fragmentary specimen to Archaeopterygidae instead. The juvenile
Zhongornis branches next, with alternative positions in
Scansoriopterygidae or Confuciusornithiformes being four and five steps
longer respectively."

The placement of the enigmatic Scansoriopterygids has been highly

varied. Check out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scansoriopterygidae
The only tree it shows puts them well outside Avialae, and above the

tree there is a long

discussion of numerous other analyses.

Not sure of your point. Are you claiming that we should judge a
phylogeny on the basis of whether it's represented in Wikipedia?

I suggest you compare the Mortimer et.al. matrix with one or more of

the ones

among the analyses listed.

The proper citation, incidentally, is "Hartman et al.". And haven't the
authors done that comparison already? See Fig. S1. I also note that the
legitimacy of all this is enhanced, if any such were necessary, by my
observation that the editor was Hans-Dieter Sues.

I ask again: what, if any of this, is relevant to the question that
began the post?

On 9/8/22 6:59 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:55:52 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

On 8/30/22 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

More importantly, the article in question is a legitimate
contribution to the paleontology literature,

How do you know? Did you investigate the matrix (or matrices?) that

Mortimer and co.

used to generate their phylogenetic trees in Fig. 17 and Fig. 18?

No. I just read the paper. Did you?

I've read enough of it to see two deficiencies and several peculiar

details.
Which of those details is relevant to whether the article is a
legitimate contribution, and if so, why?

Do you disagree?

Yes. To begin with, a simple scan shows that they nowhere mention

which taxon

they used to root the tree. Very sloppy writing, refereeing, and

editing is to blame, wouldn't you say?
Not true. The outgroup to Maniraptoromorpha is stated to be a large
selection of taxa, with Dilophosaurus as the ultimate outgroup.

Just above Fig. 17 is the following sentence:

"As *Ornitholestes* has never been recovered as a tyrannosauroid it

is considered the most basal well supported member of Maniraptoromorpha
here."

And yet, Ornitholestes appears neither in Fig. 17 nor Fig. 18. Their

trees apparently don't

show the breadth of Maniraptoromorpha. More sloppiness.

That's because as stated those figures were pruned to emphasize
important stuff. For the full tree, see F

ig. S2.>

Also, to a layman like me, it seems peculiar that they would use 700

characters,

and claim that their choice is better than that of Maryanska et. al.,
and yet it takes so little change to make some pretty big shifts.

Not clear what part of that seems peculiar. But the last bit is a
problem that's common to trees using paleontological data. It results
from the limited information in skeletal characters and the large amount
of missing data even for skeletal characters.

"A Deinonychosauria including troodontids and dromaeosaurids was

recovered as in many recent analyses. Positioning troodontids closer to
Aves than dromaeosaurids only requires a single additional step, but
non-eumaniraptoran troodontids are less parsimonious at six more steps.
Scansoriopterygids form the first branch of Avialae, matching their
stratigraphic placement, and constraining them as basal paravians
instead is only one step longer. Their other suggested position as
oviraptorosaurs requires 12 more steps though, so is unlikely. While
Pedopenna emerges as a scansoriopterygid in the MPTs, one step moves the
fragmentary specimen to Archaeopterygidae instead. The juvenile
Zhongornis branches next, with alternative positions in
Scansoriopterygidae or Confuciusornithiformes being four and five steps
longer respectively."

The placement of the enigmatic Scansoriopterygids has been highly

varied. Check out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scansoriopterygidae
The only tree it shows puts them well outside Avialae, and above the

tree there is a long

discussion of numerous other analyses.

Not sure of your point. Are you claiming that we should judge a
phylogeny on the basis of whether it's represented in Wikipedia?

I suggest you compare the Mortimer et.al. matrix with one or more of

the ones

among the analyses listed.

The proper citation, incidentally, is "Hartman et al.". And haven't the
authors done that comparison already? See Fig. S1. I also note that the
legitimacy of all this is enhanced, if any such were necessary, by my
observation that the editor was Hans-Dieter Sues.

I ask again: what, if any of this, is relevant to the question that
began the post?

'
This is the fifth of five tests that you did in replies to your OP or replies to replies....
Six posts on the 8th of September.
Couldn't you have done any of them on the original thread?
That's where I've been looking for a reply for the last five days.
Or you could have told me about your tests in the "False Dichotomy..."
thread where we communicated until well into Friday.

Having trouble with usenet these days. Posts never load, posts
disappear. You see only the successful tests. I'm lucky that reply
turned up anywhere.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/13/22 6:15 AM, John Harshman wrote:

On 9/12/22 7:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 4:55:34 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

On 9/8/22 9:53 AM, John Harshman wrote:

On 9/8/22 6:59 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:55:52 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>> On 8/30/22 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>

More importantly, the article in question is a legitimate
contribution to the paleontology literature,

How do you know? Did you investigate the matrix (or matrices?) that >>>> Mortimer and co.
used to generate their phylogenetic trees in Fig. 17 and Fig. 18?

No. I just read the paper. Did you?

I've read enough of it to see two deficiencies and several peculiar

details.
Which of those details is relevant to whether the article is a
legitimate contribution, and if so, why?

Do you disagree?

Yes. To begin with, a simple scan shows that they nowhere mention

which taxon

they used to root the tree. Very sloppy writing, refereeing, and

editing is to blame, wouldn't you say?
Not true. The outgroup to Maniraptoromorpha is stated to be a large
selection of taxa, with Dilophosaurus as the ultimate outgroup.

Just above Fig. 17 is the following sentence:

"As *Ornitholestes* has never been recovered as a tyrannosauroid it

is considered the most basal well supported member of Maniraptoromorpha >>>> here."

And yet, Ornitholestes appears neither in Fig. 17 nor Fig. 18. Their

trees apparently don't

show the breadth of Maniraptoromorpha. More sloppiness.

That's because as stated those figures were pruned to emphasize
important stuff. For the full tree, see F

ig. S2.>

Also, to a layman like me, it seems peculiar that they would use 700

characters,

and claim that their choice is better than that of Maryanska et. al., >>>>> and yet it takes so little change to make some pretty big shifts.

Not clear what part of that seems peculiar. But the last bit is a
problem that's common to trees using paleontological data. It results
from the limited information in skeletal characters and the large
amount
of missing data even for skeletal characters.

"A Deinonychosauria including troodontids and dromaeosaurids was

recovered as in many recent analyses. Positioning troodontids closer to >>>> Aves than dromaeosaurids only requires a single additional step, but
non-eumaniraptoran troodontids are less parsimonious at six more steps. >>>> Scansoriopterygids form the first branch of Avialae, matching their
stratigraphic placement, and constraining them as basal paravians
instead is only one step longer. Their other suggested position as
oviraptorosaurs requires 12 more steps though, so is unlikely. While
Pedopenna emerges as a scansoriopterygid in the MPTs, one step moves
the
fragmentary specimen to Archaeopterygidae instead. The juvenile
Zhongornis branches next, with alternative positions in
Scansoriopterygidae or Confuciusornithiformes being four and five steps >>>> longer respectively."

The placement of the enigmatic Scansoriopterygids has been highly

varied. Check out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scansoriopterygidae
The only tree it shows puts them well outside Avialae, and above the

tree there is a long

discussion of numerous other analyses.

Not sure of your point. Are you claiming that we should judge a
phylogeny on the basis of whether it's represented in Wikipedia?

I suggest you compare the Mortimer et.al. matrix with one or more of

the ones

among the analyses listed.

The proper citation, incidentally, is "Hartman et al.". And haven't the >>>> authors done that comparison already? See Fig. S1. I also note that the >>>> legitimacy of all this is enhanced, if any such were necessary, by my
observation that the editor was Hans-Dieter Sues.

I ask again: what, if any of this, is relevant to the question that
began the post?

On 9/8/22 6:59 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:55:52 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>> On 8/30/22 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>

More importantly, the article in question is a legitimate
contribution to the paleontology literature,

How do you know? Did you investigate the matrix (or matrices?) that

Mortimer and co.

used to generate their phylogenetic trees in Fig. 17 and Fig. 18?

No. I just read the paper. Did you?

I've read enough of it to see two deficiencies and several peculiar

details.
Which of those details is relevant to whether the article is a
legitimate contribution, and if so, why?

Do you disagree?

Yes. To begin with, a simple scan shows that they nowhere mention

which taxon

they used to root the tree. Very sloppy writing, refereeing, and

editing is to blame, wouldn't you say?
Not true. The outgroup to Maniraptoromorpha is stated to be a large
selection of taxa, with Dilophosaurus as the ultimate outgroup.

Just above Fig. 17 is the following sentence:

"As *Ornitholestes* has never been recovered as a tyrannosauroid it

is considered the most basal well supported member of Maniraptoromorpha
here."

And yet, Ornitholestes appears neither in Fig. 17 nor Fig. 18. Their

trees apparently don't

show the breadth of Maniraptoromorpha. More sloppiness.

That's because as stated those figures were pruned to emphasize
important stuff. For the full tree, see F

ig. S2.>

Also, to a layman like me, it seems peculiar that they would use 700

characters,

and claim that their choice is better than that of Maryanska et. al.,
and yet it takes so little change to make some pretty big shifts.

Not clear what part of that seems peculiar. But the last bit is a
problem that's common to trees using paleontological data. It results
from the limited information in skeletal characters and the large amount >>> of missing data even for skeletal characters.

"A Deinonychosauria including troodontids and dromaeosaurids was

recovered as in many recent analyses. Positioning troodontids closer to
Aves than dromaeosaurids only requires a single additional step, but
non-eumaniraptoran troodontids are less parsimonious at six more steps.
Scansoriopterygids form the first branch of Avialae, matching their
stratigraphic placement, and constraining them as basal paravians
instead is only one step longer. Their other suggested position as
oviraptorosaurs requires 12 more steps though, so is unlikely. While
Pedopenna emerges as a scansoriopterygid in the MPTs, one step moves the >>> fragmentary specimen to Archaeopterygidae instead. The juvenile
Zhongornis branches next, with alternative positions in
Scansoriopterygidae or Confuciusornithiformes being four and five steps
longer respectively."

The placement of the enigmatic Scansoriopterygids has been highly

varied. Check out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scansoriopterygidae
The only tree it shows puts them well outside Avialae, and above the

tree there is a long

discussion of numerous other analyses.

Not sure of your point. Are you claiming that we should judge a
phylogeny on the basis of whether it's represented in Wikipedia?

I suggest you compare the Mortimer et.al. matrix with one or more of

the ones

among the analyses listed.

The proper citation, incidentally, is "Hartman et al.". And haven't the
authors done that comparison already? See Fig. S1. I also note that the
legitimacy of all this is enhanced, if any such were necessary, by my
observation that the editor was Hans-Dieter Sues.

I ask again: what, if any of this, is relevant to the question that
began the post?

'
This is the fifth  of five tests that you did in replies to your OP or
replies to replies....
Six posts on the 8th of September.
Couldn't you have done any of them on the original thread?
That's where I've been looking for a reply for the last five days.
Or you could have told me about your tests in the "False Dichotomy..."
thread where we communicated until well into Friday.

Having trouble with usenet these days. Posts never load, posts
disappear. You see only the successful tests. I'm lucky that reply
turned up anywhere.

This is yet another test.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 4:38:22 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

On 9/13/22 6:15 AM, John Harshman wrote:

On 9/12/22 7:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 4:55:34 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>> On 9/8/22 9:53 AM, John Harshman wrote:

On 9/8/22 6:59 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:55:52 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>> On 8/30/22 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>

More importantly, the article in question is a legitimate
contribution to the paleontology literature,

How do you know? Did you investigate the matrix (or matrices?) that >>>> Mortimer and co.
used to generate their phylogenetic trees in Fig. 17 and Fig. 18? >>>>>

No. I just read the paper. Did you?

I've read enough of it to see two deficiencies and several peculiar >>>> details.

Which of those details is relevant to whether the article is a
legitimate contribution, and if so, why?

Do you disagree?

Yes. To begin with, a simple scan shows that they nowhere mention

which taxon

they used to root the tree. Very sloppy writing, refereeing, and

editing is to blame, wouldn't you say?
Not true. The outgroup to Maniraptoromorpha is stated to be a large
selection of taxa, with Dilophosaurus as the ultimate outgroup.

Just above Fig. 17 is the following sentence:

"As *Ornitholestes* has never been recovered as a tyrannosauroid it >>>> is considered the most basal well supported member of Maniraptoromorpha >>>> here."

And yet, Ornitholestes appears neither in Fig. 17 nor Fig. 18. Their >>>> trees apparently don't
show the breadth of Maniraptoromorpha. More sloppiness.

That's because as stated those figures were pruned to emphasize
important stuff. For the full tree, see F

ig. S2.>

Also, to a layman like me, it seems peculiar that they would use 700 >>>> characters,
and claim that their choice is better than that of Maryanska et. al., >>>>> and yet it takes so little change to make some pretty big shifts.

Not clear what part of that seems peculiar. But the last bit is a
problem that's common to trees using paleontological data. It results >>>> from the limited information in skeletal characters and the large
amount
of missing data even for skeletal characters.

"A Deinonychosauria including troodontids and dromaeosaurids was

recovered as in many recent analyses. Positioning troodontids closer to >>>> Aves than dromaeosaurids only requires a single additional step, but >>>> non-eumaniraptoran troodontids are less parsimonious at six more steps. >>>> Scansoriopterygids form the first branch of Avialae, matching their
stratigraphic placement, and constraining them as basal paravians
instead is only one step longer. Their other suggested position as
oviraptorosaurs requires 12 more steps though, so is unlikely. While >>>> Pedopenna emerges as a scansoriopterygid in the MPTs, one step moves >>>> the
fragmentary specimen to Archaeopterygidae instead. The juvenile
Zhongornis branches next, with alternative positions in
Scansoriopterygidae or Confuciusornithiformes being four and five steps >>>> longer respectively."

The placement of the enigmatic Scansoriopterygids has been highly

varied. Check out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scansoriopterygidae
The only tree it shows puts them well outside Avialae, and above the >>>> tree there is a long
discussion of numerous other analyses.

Not sure of your point. Are you claiming that we should judge a
phylogeny on the basis of whether it's represented in Wikipedia?

I suggest you compare the Mortimer et.al. matrix with one or more of >>>> the ones
among the analyses listed.

The proper citation, incidentally, is "Hartman et al.". And haven't the >>>> authors done that comparison already? See Fig. S1. I also note that the >>>> legitimacy of all this is enhanced, if any such were necessary, by my >>>> observation that the editor was Hans-Dieter Sues.

I ask again: what, if any of this, is relevant to the question that
began the post?

On 9/8/22 6:59 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:55:52 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>> On 8/30/22 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>

More importantly, the article in question is a legitimate
contribution to the paleontology literature,

How do you know? Did you investigate the matrix (or matrices?) that >>> Mortimer and co.
used to generate their phylogenetic trees in Fig. 17 and Fig. 18?

No. I just read the paper. Did you?

I've read enough of it to see two deficiencies and several peculiar

details.
Which of those details is relevant to whether the article is a
legitimate contribution, and if so, why?

Do you disagree?

Yes. To begin with, a simple scan shows that they nowhere mention

which taxon

they used to root the tree. Very sloppy writing, refereeing, and

editing is to blame, wouldn't you say?
Not true. The outgroup to Maniraptoromorpha is stated to be a large
selection of taxa, with Dilophosaurus as the ultimate outgroup.

Just above Fig. 17 is the following sentence:

"As *Ornitholestes* has never been recovered as a tyrannosauroid it

is considered the most basal well supported member of Maniraptoromorpha >>> here."

And yet, Ornitholestes appears neither in Fig. 17 nor Fig. 18. Their

trees apparently don't

show the breadth of Maniraptoromorpha. More sloppiness.

That's because as stated those figures were pruned to emphasize
important stuff. For the full tree, see F

ig. S2.>

Also, to a layman like me, it seems peculiar that they would use 700

characters,

and claim that their choice is better than that of Maryanska et. al., >>>> and yet it takes so little change to make some pretty big shifts.

Not clear what part of that seems peculiar. But the last bit is a
problem that's common to trees using paleontological data. It results
from the limited information in skeletal characters and the large amount >>> of missing data even for skeletal characters.

"A Deinonychosauria including troodontids and dromaeosaurids was

recovered as in many recent analyses. Positioning troodontids closer to >>> Aves than dromaeosaurids only requires a single additional step, but
non-eumaniraptoran troodontids are less parsimonious at six more steps. >>> Scansoriopterygids form the first branch of Avialae, matching their
stratigraphic placement, and constraining them as basal paravians
instead is only one step longer. Their other suggested position as
oviraptorosaurs requires 12 more steps though, so is unlikely. While
Pedopenna emerges as a scansoriopterygid in the MPTs, one step moves the >>> fragmentary specimen to Archaeopterygidae instead. The juvenile
Zhongornis branches next, with alternative positions in
Scansoriopterygidae or Confuciusornithiformes being four and five steps >>> longer respectively."

The placement of the enigmatic Scansoriopterygids has been highly

varied. Check out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scansoriopterygidae
The only tree it shows puts them well outside Avialae, and above the

tree there is a long

discussion of numerous other analyses.

Not sure of your point. Are you claiming that we should judge a
phylogeny on the basis of whether it's represented in Wikipedia?

I suggest you compare the Mortimer et.al. matrix with one or more of

the ones

among the analyses listed.

The proper citation, incidentally, is "Hartman et al.". And haven't the >>> authors done that comparison already? See Fig. S1. I also note that the >>> legitimacy of all this is enhanced, if any such were necessary, by my
observation that the editor was Hans-Dieter Sues.

I ask again: what, if any of this, is relevant to the question that
began the post?

'
This is the fifth of five tests that you did in replies to your OP or
replies to replies....
Six posts on the 8th of September.
Couldn't you have done any of them on the original thread?
That's where I've been looking for a reply for the last five days.
Or you could have told me about your tests in the "False Dichotomy..."
thread where we communicated until well into Friday.

Having trouble with usenet these days. Posts never load, posts
disappear. You see only the successful tests. I'm lucky that reply
turned up anywhere.

This is yet another test.

It came through.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 9:15:57 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

On 9/12/22 7:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 4:55:34 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

On 9/8/22 9:53 AM, John Harshman wrote:

On 9/8/22 6:59 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:55:52 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>> On 8/30/22 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>

More importantly, the article in question is a legitimate
contribution to the paleontology literature,

How do you know? Did you investigate the matrix (or matrices?) that >>> Mortimer and co.
used to generate their phylogenetic trees in Fig. 17 and Fig. 18?

No. I just read the paper. Did you?

I've read enough of it to see two deficiencies and several peculiar

details.
Which of those details is relevant to whether the article is a
legitimate contribution, and if so, why?

Do you disagree?

Yes. To begin with, a simple scan shows that they nowhere mention

which taxon

they used to root the tree. Very sloppy writing, refereeing, and

editing is to blame, wouldn't you say?
Not true. The outgroup to Maniraptoromorpha is stated to be a large
selection of taxa, with Dilophosaurus as the ultimate outgroup.

Just above Fig. 17 is the following sentence:

"As *Ornitholestes* has never been recovered as a tyrannosauroid it

is considered the most basal well supported member of Maniraptoromorpha >>> here."

And yet, Ornitholestes appears neither in Fig. 17 nor Fig. 18. Their

trees apparently don't

show the breadth of Maniraptoromorpha. More sloppiness.

That's because as stated those figures were pruned to emphasize
important stuff. For the full tree, see F

ig. S2.>

Also, to a layman like me, it seems peculiar that they would use 700

characters,

and claim that their choice is better than that of Maryanska et. al., >>>> and yet it takes so little change to make some pretty big shifts.

Not clear what part of that seems peculiar. But the last bit is a
problem that's common to trees using paleontological data. It results
from the limited information in skeletal characters and the large amount >>> of missing data even for skeletal characters.

"A Deinonychosauria including troodontids and dromaeosaurids was

recovered as in many recent analyses. Positioning troodontids closer to >>> Aves than dromaeosaurids only requires a single additional step, but
non-eumaniraptoran troodontids are less parsimonious at six more steps. >>> Scansoriopterygids form the first branch of Avialae, matching their
stratigraphic placement, and constraining them as basal paravians
instead is only one step longer. Their other suggested position as
oviraptorosaurs requires 12 more steps though, so is unlikely. While
Pedopenna emerges as a scansoriopterygid in the MPTs, one step moves the >>> fragmentary specimen to Archaeopterygidae instead. The juvenile
Zhongornis branches next, with alternative positions in
Scansoriopterygidae or Confuciusornithiformes being four and five steps >>> longer respectively."

The placement of the enigmatic Scansoriopterygids has been highly

varied. Check out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scansoriopterygidae
The only tree it shows puts them well outside Avialae, and above the

tree there is a long

discussion of numerous other analyses.

Not sure of your point. Are you claiming that we should judge a
phylogeny on the basis of whether it's represented in Wikipedia?

I suggest you compare the Mortimer et.al. matrix with one or more of

the ones

among the analyses listed.

The proper citation, incidentally, is "Hartman et al.". And haven't the >>> authors done that comparison already? See Fig. S1. I also note that the >>> legitimacy of all this is enhanced, if any such were necessary, by my
observation that the editor was Hans-Dieter Sues.

I ask again: what, if any of this, is relevant to the question that
began the post?

On 9/8/22 6:59 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:55:52 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>> On 8/30/22 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>

More importantly, the article in question is a legitimate
contribution to the paleontology literature,

How do you know? Did you investigate the matrix (or matrices?) that

Mortimer and co.

used to generate their phylogenetic trees in Fig. 17 and Fig. 18?

No. I just read the paper. Did you?

I've read enough of it to see two deficiencies and several peculiar

details.
Which of those details is relevant to whether the article is a
legitimate contribution, and if so, why?

Do you disagree?

Yes. To begin with, a simple scan shows that they nowhere mention

which taxon

they used to root the tree. Very sloppy writing, refereeing, and

editing is to blame, wouldn't you say?
Not true. The outgroup to Maniraptoromorpha is stated to be a large
selection of taxa, with Dilophosaurus as the ultimate outgroup.

Just above Fig. 17 is the following sentence:

"As *Ornitholestes* has never been recovered as a tyrannosauroid it

is considered the most basal well supported member of Maniraptoromorpha
here."

And yet, Ornitholestes appears neither in Fig. 17 nor Fig. 18. Their

trees apparently don't

show the breadth of Maniraptoromorpha. More sloppiness.

That's because as stated those figures were pruned to emphasize
important stuff. For the full tree, see F

ig. S2.>

Also, to a layman like me, it seems peculiar that they would use 700

characters,

and claim that their choice is better than that of Maryanska et. al.,
and yet it takes so little change to make some pretty big shifts.

Not clear what part of that seems peculiar. But the last bit is a
problem that's common to trees using paleontological data. It results
from the limited information in skeletal characters and the large amount >> of missing data even for skeletal characters.

"A Deinonychosauria including troodontids and dromaeosaurids was

recovered as in many recent analyses. Positioning troodontids closer to
Aves than dromaeosaurids only requires a single additional step, but
non-eumaniraptoran troodontids are less parsimonious at six more steps.
Scansoriopterygids form the first branch of Avialae, matching their
stratigraphic placement, and constraining them as basal paravians
instead is only one step longer. Their other suggested position as
oviraptorosaurs requires 12 more steps though, so is unlikely. While
Pedopenna emerges as a scansoriopterygid in the MPTs, one step moves the >> fragmentary specimen to Archaeopterygidae instead. The juvenile
Zhongornis branches next, with alternative positions in
Scansoriopterygidae or Confuciusornithiformes being four and five steps
longer respectively."

The placement of the enigmatic Scansoriopterygids has been highly

varied. Check out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scansoriopterygidae
The only tree it shows puts them well outside Avialae, and above the

tree there is a long

discussion of numerous other analyses.

Not sure of your point. Are you claiming that we should judge a
phylogeny on the basis of whether it's represented in Wikipedia?

I suggest you compare the Mortimer et.al. matrix with one or more of

the ones

among the analyses listed.

The proper citation, incidentally, is "Hartman et al.". And haven't the
authors done that comparison already? See Fig. S1. I also note that the
legitimacy of all this is enhanced, if any such were necessary, by my
observation that the editor was Hans-Dieter Sues.

I ask again: what, if any of this, is relevant to the question that
began the post?

'
This is the fifth of five tests that you did in replies to your OP or replies to replies....
Six posts on the 8th of September.
Couldn't you have done any of them on the original thread?
That's where I've been looking for a reply for the last five days.
Or you could have told me about your tests in the "False Dichotomy..." thread where we communicated until well into Friday.

Having trouble with usenet these days. Posts never load, posts
disappear. You see only the successful tests. I'm lucky that reply
turned up anywhere.

As did five earlier ones, including the OP. See above.

Have you made sure your internet connection is good both before
and after you attempt the posts?

Now, a request: let me know whether YOU see this post.
Because I don't want for you to wonder what happened to me after
tomorrow evening. I'll be on a posting break starting then and
ending on Monday, the 26th. Then, if your troubles are over,
I will deal with what you've kept repeating about Mickey
on this thread, and also on the "False Dichotomy..." thread.

Peter Nyikos

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/14/22 6:08 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 9:15:57 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

On 9/12/22 7:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 4:55:34 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>> On 9/8/22 9:53 AM, John Harshman wrote:

On 9/8/22 6:59 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:55:52 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/30/22 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>

More importantly, the article in question is a legitimate
contribution to the paleontology literature,

How do you know? Did you investigate the matrix (or matrices?) that >>>>> Mortimer and co.
used to generate their phylogenetic trees in Fig. 17 and Fig. 18? >>>>>>

No. I just read the paper. Did you?

I've read enough of it to see two deficiencies and several peculiar >>>>> details.

Which of those details is relevant to whether the article is a
legitimate contribution, and if so, why?

Do you disagree?

Yes. To begin with, a simple scan shows that they nowhere mention

which taxon

they used to root the tree. Very sloppy writing, refereeing, and

editing is to blame, wouldn't you say?
Not true. The outgroup to Maniraptoromorpha is stated to be a large
selection of taxa, with Dilophosaurus as the ultimate outgroup.

Just above Fig. 17 is the following sentence:

"As *Ornitholestes* has never been recovered as a tyrannosauroid it >>>>> is considered the most basal well supported member of Maniraptoromorpha >>>>> here."

And yet, Ornitholestes appears neither in Fig. 17 nor Fig. 18. Their >>>>> trees apparently don't
show the breadth of Maniraptoromorpha. More sloppiness.

That's because as stated those figures were pruned to emphasize
important stuff. For the full tree, see F

ig. S2.>

Also, to a layman like me, it seems peculiar that they would use 700 >>>>> characters,
and claim that their choice is better than that of Maryanska et. al., >>>>>> and yet it takes so little change to make some pretty big shifts.

Not clear what part of that seems peculiar. But the last bit is a
problem that's common to trees using paleontological data. It results >>>>> from the limited information in skeletal characters and the large amount >>>>> of missing data even for skeletal characters.

"A Deinonychosauria including troodontids and dromaeosaurids was

recovered as in many recent analyses. Positioning troodontids closer to >>>>> Aves than dromaeosaurids only requires a single additional step, but >>>>> non-eumaniraptoran troodontids are less parsimonious at six more steps. >>>>> Scansoriopterygids form the first branch of Avialae, matching their
stratigraphic placement, and constraining them as basal paravians
instead is only one step longer. Their other suggested position as
oviraptorosaurs requires 12 more steps though, so is unlikely. While >>>>> Pedopenna emerges as a scansoriopterygid in the MPTs, one step moves the >>>>> fragmentary specimen to Archaeopterygidae instead. The juvenile
Zhongornis branches next, with alternative positions in
Scansoriopterygidae or Confuciusornithiformes being four and five steps >>>>> longer respectively."

The placement of the enigmatic Scansoriopterygids has been highly

varied. Check out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scansoriopterygidae
The only tree it shows puts them well outside Avialae, and above the >>>>> tree there is a long
discussion of numerous other analyses.

Not sure of your point. Are you claiming that we should judge a
phylogeny on the basis of whether it's represented in Wikipedia?

I suggest you compare the Mortimer et.al. matrix with one or more of >>>>> the ones
among the analyses listed.

The proper citation, incidentally, is "Hartman et al.". And haven't the >>>>> authors done that comparison already? See Fig. S1. I also note that the >>>>> legitimacy of all this is enhanced, if any such were necessary, by my >>>>> observation that the editor was Hans-Dieter Sues.

I ask again: what, if any of this, is relevant to the question that
began the post?

On 9/8/22 6:59 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:55:52 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>> On 8/30/22 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>

More importantly, the article in question is a legitimate
contribution to the paleontology literature,

How do you know? Did you investigate the matrix (or matrices?) that >>>> Mortimer and co.
used to generate their phylogenetic trees in Fig. 17 and Fig. 18?

No. I just read the paper. Did you?

I've read enough of it to see two deficiencies and several peculiar

details.
Which of those details is relevant to whether the article is a
legitimate contribution, and if so, why?

Do you disagree?

Yes. To begin with, a simple scan shows that they nowhere mention

which taxon

they used to root the tree. Very sloppy writing, refereeing, and

editing is to blame, wouldn't you say?
Not true. The outgroup to Maniraptoromorpha is stated to be a large
selection of taxa, with Dilophosaurus as the ultimate outgroup.

Just above Fig. 17 is the following sentence:

"As *Ornitholestes* has never been recovered as a tyrannosauroid it

is considered the most basal well supported member of Maniraptoromorpha >>>> here."

And yet, Ornitholestes appears neither in Fig. 17 nor Fig. 18. Their

trees apparently don't

show the breadth of Maniraptoromorpha. More sloppiness.

That's because as stated those figures were pruned to emphasize
important stuff. For the full tree, see F

ig. S2.>

Also, to a layman like me, it seems peculiar that they would use 700

characters,

and claim that their choice is better than that of Maryanska et. al., >>>>> and yet it takes so little change to make some pretty big shifts.

Not clear what part of that seems peculiar. But the last bit is a
problem that's common to trees using paleontological data. It results
from the limited information in skeletal characters and the large amount >>>> of missing data even for skeletal characters.

"A Deinonychosauria including troodontids and dromaeosaurids was

recovered as in many recent analyses. Positioning troodontids closer to >>>> Aves than dromaeosaurids only requires a single additional step, but
non-eumaniraptoran troodontids are less parsimonious at six more steps. >>>> Scansoriopterygids form the first branch of Avialae, matching their
stratigraphic placement, and constraining them as basal paravians
instead is only one step longer. Their other suggested position as
oviraptorosaurs requires 12 more steps though, so is unlikely. While
Pedopenna emerges as a scansoriopterygid in the MPTs, one step moves the >>>> fragmentary specimen to Archaeopterygidae instead. The juvenile
Zhongornis branches next, with alternative positions in
Scansoriopterygidae or Confuciusornithiformes being four and five steps >>>> longer respectively."

The placement of the enigmatic Scansoriopterygids has been highly

varied. Check out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scansoriopterygidae
The only tree it shows puts them well outside Avialae, and above the

tree there is a long

discussion of numerous other analyses.

Not sure of your point. Are you claiming that we should judge a
phylogeny on the basis of whether it's represented in Wikipedia?

I suggest you compare the Mortimer et.al. matrix with one or more of

the ones

among the analyses listed.

The proper citation, incidentally, is "Hartman et al.". And haven't the >>>> authors done that comparison already? See Fig. S1. I also note that the >>>> legitimacy of all this is enhanced, if any such were necessary, by my
observation that the editor was Hans-Dieter Sues.

I ask again: what, if any of this, is relevant to the question that
began the post?

'
This is the fifth of five tests that you did in replies to your OP or replies to replies....
Six posts on the 8th of September.
Couldn't you have done any of them on the original thread?
That's where I've been looking for a reply for the last five days.
Or you could have told me about your tests in the "False Dichotomy..."
thread where we communicated until well into Friday.

Having trouble with usenet these days. Posts never load, posts
disappear. You see only the successful tests. I'm lucky that reply
turned up anywhere.

As did five earlier ones, including the OP. See above.

Have you made sure your internet connection is good both before
and after you attempt the posts?

Now, a request: let me know whether YOU see this post.
Because I don't want for you to wonder what happened to me after
tomorrow evening. I'll be on a posting break starting then and
ending on Monday, the 26th. Then, if your troubles are over,
I will deal with what you've kept repeating about Mickey
on this thread, and also on the "False Dichotomy..." thread.

More than anything else, I would like to know why you found it necessary
to belabor who's a paleontologist and who isn't, in the apparent belief
that I had at some time claimed to be a paleontologist.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 10:33:51 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

On 9/14/22 6:08 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 9:15:57 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

On 9/12/22 7:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 4:55:34 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>> On 9/8/22 9:53 AM, John Harshman wrote:

On 9/8/22 6:59 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:55:52 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/30/22 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>

More importantly, the article in question is a legitimate
contribution to the paleontology literature,

How do you know? Did you investigate the matrix (or matrices?) that >>>>> Mortimer and co.
used to generate their phylogenetic trees in Fig. 17 and Fig. 18? >>>>>>

No. I just read the paper. Did you?

I've read enough of it to see two deficiencies and several peculiar >>>>> details.

Which of those details is relevant to whether the article is a
legitimate contribution, and if so, why?

Do you disagree?

Yes. To begin with, a simple scan shows that they nowhere mention >>>>> which taxon
they used to root the tree. Very sloppy writing, refereeing, and

editing is to blame, wouldn't you say?
Not true. The outgroup to Maniraptoromorpha is stated to be a large >>>>> selection of taxa, with Dilophosaurus as the ultimate outgroup.

Just above Fig. 17 is the following sentence:

"As *Ornitholestes* has never been recovered as a tyrannosauroid it >>>>> is considered the most basal well supported member of Maniraptoromorpha >>>>> here."

And yet, Ornitholestes appears neither in Fig. 17 nor Fig. 18. Their >>>>> trees apparently don't
show the breadth of Maniraptoromorpha. More sloppiness.

That's because as stated those figures were pruned to emphasize
important stuff. For the full tree, see F

ig. S2.>

Also, to a layman like me, it seems peculiar that they would use 700 >>>>> characters,
and claim that their choice is better than that of Maryanska et. al., >>>>>> and yet it takes so little change to make some pretty big shifts. >>>>> Not clear what part of that seems peculiar. But the last bit is a

problem that's common to trees using paleontological data. It results >>>>> from the limited information in skeletal characters and the large amount
of missing data even for skeletal characters.

"A Deinonychosauria including troodontids and dromaeosaurids was

recovered as in many recent analyses. Positioning troodontids closer to >>>>> Aves than dromaeosaurids only requires a single additional step, but >>>>> non-eumaniraptoran troodontids are less parsimonious at six more steps. >>>>> Scansoriopterygids form the first branch of Avialae, matching their >>>>> stratigraphic placement, and constraining them as basal paravians
instead is only one step longer. Their other suggested position as >>>>> oviraptorosaurs requires 12 more steps though, so is unlikely. While >>>>> Pedopenna emerges as a scansoriopterygid in the MPTs, one step moves the
fragmentary specimen to Archaeopterygidae instead. The juvenile
Zhongornis branches next, with alternative positions in
Scansoriopterygidae or Confuciusornithiformes being four and five steps >>>>> longer respectively."

The placement of the enigmatic Scansoriopterygids has been highly >>>>> varied. Check out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scansoriopterygidae
The only tree it shows puts them well outside Avialae, and above the >>>>> tree there is a long
discussion of numerous other analyses.

Not sure of your point. Are you claiming that we should judge a
phylogeny on the basis of whether it's represented in Wikipedia?

I suggest you compare the Mortimer et.al. matrix with one or more of >>>>> the ones
among the analyses listed.

The proper citation, incidentally, is "Hartman et al.". And haven't the >>>>> authors done that comparison already? See Fig. S1. I also note that the >>>>> legitimacy of all this is enhanced, if any such were necessary, by my >>>>> observation that the editor was Hans-Dieter Sues.

I ask again: what, if any of this, is relevant to the question that >>>>> began the post?

On 9/8/22 6:59 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:55:52 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>> On 8/30/22 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>

More importantly, the article in question is a legitimate
contribution to the paleontology literature,

How do you know? Did you investigate the matrix (or matrices?) that >>>> Mortimer and co.
used to generate their phylogenetic trees in Fig. 17 and Fig. 18? >>>>>

No. I just read the paper. Did you?

I've read enough of it to see two deficiencies and several peculiar >>>> details.

Which of those details is relevant to whether the article is a
legitimate contribution, and if so, why?

Do you disagree?

Yes. To begin with, a simple scan shows that they nowhere mention

which taxon

they used to root the tree. Very sloppy writing, refereeing, and

editing is to blame, wouldn't you say?
Not true. The outgroup to Maniraptoromorpha is stated to be a large
selection of taxa, with Dilophosaurus as the ultimate outgroup.

Just above Fig. 17 is the following sentence:

"As *Ornitholestes* has never been recovered as a tyrannosauroid it >>>> is considered the most basal well supported member of Maniraptoromorpha >>>> here."

And yet, Ornitholestes appears neither in Fig. 17 nor Fig. 18. Their >>>> trees apparently don't
show the breadth of Maniraptoromorpha. More sloppiness.

That's because as stated those figures were pruned to emphasize
important stuff. For the full tree, see F

ig. S2.>

Also, to a layman like me, it seems peculiar that they would use 700 >>>> characters,
and claim that their choice is better than that of Maryanska et. al., >>>>> and yet it takes so little change to make some pretty big shifts.

Not clear what part of that seems peculiar. But the last bit is a
problem that's common to trees using paleontological data. It results >>>> from the limited information in skeletal characters and the large amount >>>> of missing data even for skeletal characters.

"A Deinonychosauria including troodontids and dromaeosaurids was

recovered as in many recent analyses. Positioning troodontids closer to >>>> Aves than dromaeosaurids only requires a single additional step, but >>>> non-eumaniraptoran troodontids are less parsimonious at six more steps. >>>> Scansoriopterygids form the first branch of Avialae, matching their
stratigraphic placement, and constraining them as basal paravians
instead is only one step longer. Their other suggested position as
oviraptorosaurs requires 12 more steps though, so is unlikely. While >>>> Pedopenna emerges as a scansoriopterygid in the MPTs, one step moves the >>>> fragmentary specimen to Archaeopterygidae instead. The juvenile
Zhongornis branches next, with alternative positions in
Scansoriopterygidae or Confuciusornithiformes being four and five steps >>>> longer respectively."

The placement of the enigmatic Scansoriopterygids has been highly

varied. Check out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scansoriopterygidae
The only tree it shows puts them well outside Avialae, and above the >>>> tree there is a long
discussion of numerous other analyses.

Not sure of your point. Are you claiming that we should judge a
phylogeny on the basis of whether it's represented in Wikipedia?

I suggest you compare the Mortimer et.al. matrix with one or more of >>>> the ones
among the analyses listed.

The proper citation, incidentally, is "Hartman et al.". And haven't the >>>> authors done that comparison already? See Fig. S1. I also note that the >>>> legitimacy of all this is enhanced, if any such were necessary, by my >>>> observation that the editor was Hans-Dieter Sues.

I ask again: what, if any of this, is relevant to the question that
began the post?

'
This is the fifth of five tests that you did in replies to your OP or replies to replies....
Six posts on the 8th of September.
Couldn't you have done any of them on the original thread?
That's where I've been looking for a reply for the last five days.
Or you could have told me about your tests in the "False Dichotomy..." >>> thread where we communicated until well into Friday.

Having trouble with usenet these days. Posts never load, posts
disappear. You see only the successful tests. I'm lucky that reply
turned up anywhere.

As did five earlier ones, including the OP. See above.

Have you made sure your internet connection is good both before
and after you attempt the posts?

Now, a request: let me know whether YOU see this post.
Because I don't want for you to wonder what happened to me after
tomorrow evening. I'll be on a posting break starting then and
ending on Monday, the 26th. Then, if your troubles are over,
I will deal with what you've kept repeating about Mickey
on this thread, and also on the "False Dichotomy..." thread.

More than anything else, I would like to know why you found it necessary
to belabor who's a paleontologist and who isn't, in the apparent belief
that I had at some time claimed to be a paleontologist.

You've shown that I misinterpreted what you had said about yourself,
and so I've gotten the message loud and clear that you don't
consider yourself to be one.

But it never was primarily about you. It was because of your
inconsistent standards as to who is to be considered a paleontologist
as far as sci.bio.paleontology is concerned. You were quite
protective of Oxyaena's claim to be a paleontologist without
ever asking her what her qualifications were. Now you claim
that to be one, one must "do paleontology" [whatever that means to you]
and have published a research paper on paleontology
in a (respected?) scientific journal. Just how changeable
are your opinions on this?


The bottom line is this: It's up to us to set standards to scrutinize
any Tom, Dick, Harry or Shirley who comes waltzing into
sci.bio.paleontology claiming to be a paleontologist.
That also applies if they claim that they live with a paleontologist.
[Recall that Oxyaena first claimed that "my husband" is a paleontologist,
and only claimed to be a paleontologist later.]

If we wait too long to set these standards, we may lose
control of the situation, and s.b.p. will be on the road
to extinction. We've got it a nearly dozen-year lease on life
since the beginning of 2011, and I for one would like
to see that continue as long as I post here.


Peter Nyikos

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/15/22 5:55 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 10:33:51 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

On 9/14/22 6:08 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 9:15:57 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>> On 9/12/22 7:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 4:55:34 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>> On 9/8/22 9:53 AM, John Harshman wrote:

On 9/8/22 6:59 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:55:52 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 8/30/22 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>

More importantly, the article in question is a legitimate >>>>>>>>>>> contribution to the paleontology literature,

How do you know? Did you investigate the matrix (or matrices?) that >>>>>>> Mortimer and co.
used to generate their phylogenetic trees in Fig. 17 and Fig. 18? >>>>>>>>

No. I just read the paper. Did you?

I've read enough of it to see two deficiencies and several peculiar >>>>>>> details.

Which of those details is relevant to whether the article is a
legitimate contribution, and if so, why?

Do you disagree?

Yes. To begin with, a simple scan shows that they nowhere mention >>>>>>> which taxon
they used to root the tree. Very sloppy writing, refereeing, and >>>>>>> editing is to blame, wouldn't you say?

Not true. The outgroup to Maniraptoromorpha is stated to be a large >>>>>>> selection of taxa, with Dilophosaurus as the ultimate outgroup.

Just above Fig. 17 is the following sentence:

"As *Ornitholestes* has never been recovered as a tyrannosauroid it >>>>>>> is considered the most basal well supported member of Maniraptoromorpha >>>>>>> here."

And yet, Ornitholestes appears neither in Fig. 17 nor Fig. 18. Their >>>>>>> trees apparently don't
show the breadth of Maniraptoromorpha. More sloppiness.

That's because as stated those figures were pruned to emphasize
important stuff. For the full tree, see F

ig. S2.>

Also, to a layman like me, it seems peculiar that they would use 700 >>>>>>> characters,
and claim that their choice is better than that of Maryanska et. al., >>>>>>>> and yet it takes so little change to make some pretty big shifts. >>>>>>> Not clear what part of that seems peculiar. But the last bit is a >>>>>>> problem that's common to trees using paleontological data. It results >>>>>>> from the limited information in skeletal characters and the large amount

of missing data even for skeletal characters.

"A Deinonychosauria including troodontids and dromaeosaurids was >>>>>>> recovered as in many recent analyses. Positioning troodontids closer to >>>>>>> Aves than dromaeosaurids only requires a single additional step, but >>>>>>> non-eumaniraptoran troodontids are less parsimonious at six more steps. >>>>>>> Scansoriopterygids form the first branch of Avialae, matching their >>>>>>> stratigraphic placement, and constraining them as basal paravians >>>>>>> instead is only one step longer. Their other suggested position as >>>>>>> oviraptorosaurs requires 12 more steps though, so is unlikely. While >>>>>>> Pedopenna emerges as a scansoriopterygid in the MPTs, one step moves the

fragmentary specimen to Archaeopterygidae instead. The juvenile
Zhongornis branches next, with alternative positions in
Scansoriopterygidae or Confuciusornithiformes being four and five steps >>>>>>> longer respectively."

The placement of the enigmatic Scansoriopterygids has been highly >>>>>>> varied. Check out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scansoriopterygidae
The only tree it shows puts them well outside Avialae, and above the >>>>>>> tree there is a long
discussion of numerous other analyses.

Not sure of your point. Are you claiming that we should judge a
phylogeny on the basis of whether it's represented in Wikipedia? >>>>>>>

I suggest you compare the Mortimer et.al. matrix with one or more of >>>>>>> the ones
among the analyses listed.

The proper citation, incidentally, is "Hartman et al.". And haven't the >>>>>>> authors done that comparison already? See Fig. S1. I also note that the >>>>>>> legitimacy of all this is enhanced, if any such were necessary, by my >>>>>>> observation that the editor was Hans-Dieter Sues.

I ask again: what, if any of this, is relevant to the question that >>>>>>> began the post?

On 9/8/22 6:59 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:55:52 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/30/22 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>

More importantly, the article in question is a legitimate
contribution to the paleontology literature,

How do you know? Did you investigate the matrix (or matrices?) that >>>>>> Mortimer and co.
used to generate their phylogenetic trees in Fig. 17 and Fig. 18? >>>>>>>

No. I just read the paper. Did you?

I've read enough of it to see two deficiencies and several peculiar >>>>>> details.

Which of those details is relevant to whether the article is a
legitimate contribution, and if so, why?

Do you disagree?

Yes. To begin with, a simple scan shows that they nowhere mention >>>>>> which taxon
they used to root the tree. Very sloppy writing, refereeing, and

editing is to blame, wouldn't you say?
Not true. The outgroup to Maniraptoromorpha is stated to be a large >>>>>> selection of taxa, with Dilophosaurus as the ultimate outgroup.

Just above Fig. 17 is the following sentence:

"As *Ornitholestes* has never been recovered as a tyrannosauroid it >>>>>> is considered the most basal well supported member of Maniraptoromorpha >>>>>> here."

And yet, Ornitholestes appears neither in Fig. 17 nor Fig. 18. Their >>>>>> trees apparently don't
show the breadth of Maniraptoromorpha. More sloppiness.

That's because as stated those figures were pruned to emphasize
important stuff. For the full tree, see F

ig. S2.>

Also, to a layman like me, it seems peculiar that they would use 700 >>>>>> characters,
and claim that their choice is better than that of Maryanska et. al., >>>>>>> and yet it takes so little change to make some pretty big shifts. >>>>>> Not clear what part of that seems peculiar. But the last bit is a

problem that's common to trees using paleontological data. It results >>>>>> from the limited information in skeletal characters and the large amount >>>>>> of missing data even for skeletal characters.

"A Deinonychosauria including troodontids and dromaeosaurids was

recovered as in many recent analyses. Positioning troodontids closer to >>>>>> Aves than dromaeosaurids only requires a single additional step, but >>>>>> non-eumaniraptoran troodontids are less parsimonious at six more steps. >>>>>> Scansoriopterygids form the first branch of Avialae, matching their >>>>>> stratigraphic placement, and constraining them as basal paravians
instead is only one step longer. Their other suggested position as >>>>>> oviraptorosaurs requires 12 more steps though, so is unlikely. While >>>>>> Pedopenna emerges as a scansoriopterygid in the MPTs, one step moves the >>>>>> fragmentary specimen to Archaeopterygidae instead. The juvenile
Zhongornis branches next, with alternative positions in
Scansoriopterygidae or Confuciusornithiformes being four and five steps >>>>>> longer respectively."

The placement of the enigmatic Scansoriopterygids has been highly >>>>>> varied. Check out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scansoriopterygidae
The only tree it shows puts them well outside Avialae, and above the >>>>>> tree there is a long
discussion of numerous other analyses.

Not sure of your point. Are you claiming that we should judge a
phylogeny on the basis of whether it's represented in Wikipedia?

I suggest you compare the Mortimer et.al. matrix with one or more of >>>>>> the ones
among the analyses listed.

The proper citation, incidentally, is "Hartman et al.". And haven't the >>>>>> authors done that comparison already? See Fig. S1. I also note that the >>>>>> legitimacy of all this is enhanced, if any such were necessary, by my >>>>>> observation that the editor was Hans-Dieter Sues.

I ask again: what, if any of this, is relevant to the question that >>>>>> began the post?

'
This is the fifth of five tests that you did in replies to your OP or replies to replies....
Six posts on the 8th of September.
Couldn't you have done any of them on the original thread?
That's where I've been looking for a reply for the last five days.
Or you could have told me about your tests in the "False Dichotomy..." >>>>> thread where we communicated until well into Friday.

Having trouble with usenet these days. Posts never load, posts
disappear. You see only the successful tests. I'm lucky that reply
turned up anywhere.

As did five earlier ones, including the OP. See above.

Have you made sure your internet connection is good both before
and after you attempt the posts?

Now, a request: let me know whether YOU see this post.
Because I don't want for you to wonder what happened to me after
tomorrow evening. I'll be on a posting break starting then and
ending on Monday, the 26th. Then, if your troubles are over,
I will deal with what you've kept repeating about Mickey
on this thread, and also on the "False Dichotomy..." thread.

More than anything else, I would like to know why you found it necessary
to belabor who's a paleontologist and who isn't, in the apparent belief
that I had at some time claimed to be a paleontologist.

You've shown that I misinterpreted what you had said about yourself,
and so I've gotten the message loud and clear that you don't
consider yourself to be one.

But it never was primarily about you. It was because of your
inconsistent standards as to who is to be considered a paleontologist
as far as sci.bio.paleontology is concerned. You were quite
protective of Oxyaena's claim to be a paleontologist without
ever asking her what her qualifications were. Now you claim
that to be one, one must "do paleontology" [whatever that means to you]
and have published a research paper on paleontology
in a (respected?) scientific journal. Just how changeable
are your opinions on this?

The bottom line is this: It's up to us to set standards to scrutinize
any Tom, Dick, Harry or Shirley who comes waltzing into sci.bio.paleontology claiming to be a paleontologist.
That also applies if they claim that they live with a paleontologist.
[Recall that Oxyaena first claimed that "my husband" is a paleontologist,
and only claimed to be a paleontologist later.]

If we wait too long to set these standards, we may lose
control of the situation, and s.b.p. will be on the road
to extinction. We've got it a nearly dozen-year lease on life
since the beginning of 2011, and I for one would like
to see that continue as long as I post here.

Third try: I don't think there are any fake paleontologists posting here
at the moment, and even the one real paleontologist who posts has not to
my knowledge claimed to be one. So you seem to be seeking a solution to
a non-problem.

But how about this? Assume people are what they say they are, whether paleontologist, mathematician, or bricklayer, until there is good
evidence that they aren't. If for some unknown reason you need
confirmation of professional status, ask for a citation to one of their publications. Non-problem solved.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/16/22 6:35 AM, John Harshman wrote:

On 9/15/22 5:55 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 10:33:51 PM UTC-4, John Harshman
wrote:

On 9/14/22 6:08 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 9:15:57 AM UTC-4, John Harshman
wrote:

On 9/12/22 7:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 4:55:34 PM UTC-4, John Harshman
wrote:

On 9/8/22 9:53 AM, John Harshman wrote:

On 9/8/22 6:59 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:55:52 PM UTC-4, John Harshman >>>>>>>>> wrote:

On 8/30/22 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, John Harshman >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:

More importantly, the article in question is a legitimate >>>>>>>>>>>> contribution to the paleontology literature,

How do you know? Did you investigate the matrix (or
matrices?) that

Mortimer and co.

used to generate their phylogenetic trees in Fig. 17 and Fig. >>>>>>>>>>> 18?

No. I just read the paper. Did you?

I've read enough of it to see two deficiencies and several
peculiar

details.
Which of those details is relevant to whether the article is a >>>>>>>> legitimate contribution, and if so, why?

Do you disagree?

Yes. To begin with, a simple scan shows that they nowhere mention >>>>>>>> which taxon
they used to root the tree. Very sloppy writing, refereeing, and >>>>>>>> editing is to blame, wouldn't you say?

Not true. The outgroup to Maniraptoromorpha is stated to be a large >>>>>>>> selection of taxa, with Dilophosaurus as the ultimate outgroup. >>>>>>>>

Just above Fig. 17 is the following sentence:

"As *Ornitholestes* has never been recovered as a
tyrannosauroid it

is considered the most basal well supported member of
Maniraptoromorpha
here."

And yet, Ornitholestes appears neither in Fig. 17 nor Fig. 18. >>>>>>>>> Their

trees apparently don't

show the breadth of Maniraptoromorpha. More sloppiness.

That's because as stated those figures were pruned to emphasize >>>>>>>> important stuff. For the full tree, see F

ig. S2.>

Also, to a layman like me, it seems peculiar that they would >>>>>>>>> use 700

characters,

and claim that their choice is better than that of Maryanska >>>>>>>>> et. al.,
and yet it takes so little change to make some pretty big shifts. >>>>>>>> Not clear what part of that seems peculiar. But the last bit is a >>>>>>>> problem that's common to trees using paleontological data. It

results
from the limited information in skeletal characters and the
large amount
of missing data even for skeletal characters.

"A Deinonychosauria including troodontids and dromaeosaurids was >>>>>>>> recovered as in many recent analyses. Positioning troodontids

closer to
Aves than dromaeosaurids only requires a single additional step, >>>>>>>> but
non-eumaniraptoran troodontids are less parsimonious at six more >>>>>>>> steps.
Scansoriopterygids form the first branch of Avialae, matching their >>>>>>>> stratigraphic placement, and constraining them as basal paravians >>>>>>>> instead is only one step longer. Their other suggested position as >>>>>>>> oviraptorosaurs requires 12 more steps though, so is unlikely. >>>>>>>> While
Pedopenna emerges as a scansoriopterygid in the MPTs, one step >>>>>>>> moves the
fragmentary specimen to Archaeopterygidae instead. The juvenile >>>>>>>> Zhongornis branches next, with alternative positions in
Scansoriopterygidae or Confuciusornithiformes being four and
five steps
longer respectively."

The placement of the enigmatic Scansoriopterygids has been highly >>>>>>>> varied. Check out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scansoriopterygidae
The only tree it shows puts them well outside Avialae, and
above the

tree there is a long

discussion of numerous other analyses.

Not sure of your point. Are you claiming that we should judge a >>>>>>>> phylogeny on the basis of whether it's represented in Wikipedia? >>>>>>>>

I suggest you compare the Mortimer et.al. matrix with one or >>>>>>>>> more of

the ones

among the analyses listed.

The proper citation, incidentally, is "Hartman et al.". And
haven't the
authors done that comparison already? See Fig. S1. I also note >>>>>>>> that the
legitimacy of all this is enhanced, if any such were necessary, >>>>>>>> by my
observation that the editor was Hans-Dieter Sues.

I ask again: what, if any of this, is relevant to the question that >>>>>>>> began the post?

On 9/8/22 6:59 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:55:52 PM UTC-4, John Harshman >>>>>>>> wrote:

On 8/30/22 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, John Harshman >>>>>>>>>> wrote:

More importantly, the article in question is a legitimate >>>>>>>>>>> contribution to the paleontology literature,

How do you know? Did you investigate the matrix (or matrices?) >>>>>>>>>> that

Mortimer and co.

used to generate their phylogenetic trees in Fig. 17 and Fig. 18? >>>>>>>>

No. I just read the paper. Did you?

I've read enough of it to see two deficiencies and several peculiar >>>>>>> details.

Which of those details is relevant to whether the article is a
legitimate contribution, and if so, why?

Do you disagree?

Yes. To begin with, a simple scan shows that they nowhere mention >>>>>>> which taxon
they used to root the tree. Very sloppy writing, refereeing, and >>>>>>> editing is to blame, wouldn't you say?

Not true. The outgroup to Maniraptoromorpha is stated to be a large >>>>>>> selection of taxa, with Dilophosaurus as the ultimate outgroup.

Just above Fig. 17 is the following sentence:

"As *Ornitholestes* has never been recovered as a tyrannosauroid it >>>>>>> is considered the most basal well supported member of

Maniraptoromorpha
here."

And yet, Ornitholestes appears neither in Fig. 17 nor Fig. 18. >>>>>>>> Their

trees apparently don't

show the breadth of Maniraptoromorpha. More sloppiness.

That's because as stated those figures were pruned to emphasize
important stuff. For the full tree, see F

ig. S2.>

Also, to a layman like me, it seems peculiar that they would use >>>>>>>> 700

characters,

and claim that their choice is better than that of Maryanska et. >>>>>>>> al.,
and yet it takes so little change to make some pretty big shifts. >>>>>>> Not clear what part of that seems peculiar. But the last bit is a >>>>>>> problem that's common to trees using paleontological data. It

results
from the limited information in skeletal characters and the large >>>>>>> amount
of missing data even for skeletal characters.

"A Deinonychosauria including troodontids and dromaeosaurids was >>>>>>> recovered as in many recent analyses. Positioning troodontids

closer to
Aves than dromaeosaurids only requires a single additional step, but >>>>>>> non-eumaniraptoran troodontids are less parsimonious at six more >>>>>>> steps.
Scansoriopterygids form the first branch of Avialae, matching their >>>>>>> stratigraphic placement, and constraining them as basal paravians >>>>>>> instead is only one step longer. Their other suggested position as >>>>>>> oviraptorosaurs requires 12 more steps though, so is unlikely. While >>>>>>> Pedopenna emerges as a scansoriopterygid in the MPTs, one step
moves the
fragmentary specimen to Archaeopterygidae instead. The juvenile
Zhongornis branches next, with alternative positions in
Scansoriopterygidae or Confuciusornithiformes being four and five >>>>>>> steps
longer respectively."

The placement of the enigmatic Scansoriopterygids has been highly >>>>>>> varied. Check out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scansoriopterygidae
The only tree it shows puts them well outside Avialae, and above >>>>>>>> the

tree there is a long

discussion of numerous other analyses.

Not sure of your point. Are you claiming that we should judge a
phylogeny on the basis of whether it's represented in Wikipedia? >>>>>>>

I suggest you compare the Mortimer et.al. matrix with one or
more of

the ones

among the analyses listed.

The proper citation, incidentally, is "Hartman et al.". And
haven't the
authors done that comparison already? See Fig. S1. I also note
that the
legitimacy of all this is enhanced, if any such were necessary,
by my
observation that the editor was Hans-Dieter Sues.

I ask again: what, if any of this, is relevant to the question that >>>>>>> began the post?

'
This is the fifth of five tests that you did in replies to your OP >>>>>> or replies to replies....
Six posts on the 8th of September.
Couldn't you have done any of them on the original thread?
That's where I've been looking for a reply for the last five days. >>>>>> Or you could have told me about your tests in the "False
Dichotomy..."
thread where we communicated until well into Friday.

Having trouble with usenet these days. Posts never load, posts
disappear. You see only the successful tests. I'm lucky that reply
turned up anywhere.

As did five earlier ones, including the OP. See above.

Have you made sure your internet connection is good both before
and after you attempt the posts?

Now, a request: let me know whether YOU see this post.
Because I don't want for you to wonder what happened to me after
tomorrow evening. I'll be on a posting break starting then and
ending on Monday, the 26th. Then, if your troubles are over,
I will deal with what you've kept repeating about Mickey
on this thread, and also on the "False Dichotomy..." thread.

More than anything else, I would like to know why you found it necessary >>> to belabor who's a paleontologist and who isn't, in the apparent belief
that I had at some time claimed to be a paleontologist.

You've shown that I misinterpreted what you had said about yourself,
and so I've gotten the message loud and clear that you don't
consider yourself to be one.

But it never was primarily about you. It was because of your
inconsistent standards as to who is to be considered a paleontologist
as far as sci.bio.paleontology is concerned. You were quite
protective of Oxyaena's claim to be a paleontologist without
ever asking her what her qualifications were. Now you claim
that to be one, one must "do paleontology" [whatever that means to you]
and have published a research paper on paleontology
in a (respected?) scientific journal. Just how changeable
are your opinions on this?


The bottom line is this: It's up to us to set standards to scrutinize
  any Tom, Dick, Harry or Shirley who comes waltzing into
sci.bio.paleontology claiming to be a paleontologist.
That also applies if they claim that they live with a paleontologist.
[Recall that Oxyaena first claimed that "my husband" is a paleontologist,
and only claimed to be a paleontologist later.]

If we wait too long to set these standards, we may lose
control of the situation, and s.b.p. will be on the road
to extinction. We've got it a nearly dozen-year lease on life
since the beginning of 2011, and I for one would like
to see that continue as long as I post here.

Third try: I don't think there are any fake paleontologists posting here
at the moment, and even the one real paleontologist who posts has not to
my knowledge claimed to be one. So you seem to be seeking a solution to
a non-problem.

But how about this? Assume people are what they say they are, whether paleontologist, mathematician, or bricklayer, until there is good
evidence that they aren't. If for some unknown reason you need
confirmation of professional status, ask for a citation to one of their publications. Non-problem solved.

So that one worked. How about this one?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 9:52:45 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

On 9/16/22 6:35 AM, John Harshman wrote:

On 9/15/22 5:55 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 10:33:51 PM UTC-4, John Harshman
wrote:

On 9/14/22 6:08 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 9:15:57 AM UTC-4, John Harshman
wrote:

On 9/12/22 7:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 4:55:34 PM UTC-4, John Harshman >>>>>> wrote:

On 9/8/22 9:53 AM, John Harshman wrote:

On 9/8/22 6:59 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:55:52 PM UTC-4, John Harshman >>>>>>>>> wrote:

On 8/30/22 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, John Harshman >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:

More importantly, the article in question is a legitimate >>>>>>>>>>>> contribution to the paleontology literature,

How do you know? Did you investigate the matrix (or
matrices?) that

Mortimer and co.

used to generate their phylogenetic trees in Fig. 17 and Fig. >>>>>>>>>>> 18?

No. I just read the paper. Did you?

I've read enough of it to see two deficiencies and several >>>>>>>>> peculiar

details.
Which of those details is relevant to whether the article is a >>>>>>>> legitimate contribution, and if so, why?

Do you disagree?

Yes. To begin with, a simple scan shows that they nowhere mention >>>>>>>> which taxon
they used to root the tree. Very sloppy writing, refereeing, and >>>>>>>> editing is to blame, wouldn't you say?

Not true. The outgroup to Maniraptoromorpha is stated to be a large >>>>>>>> selection of taxa, with Dilophosaurus as the ultimate outgroup. >>>>>>>>

Just above Fig. 17 is the following sentence:

"As *Ornitholestes* has never been recovered as a
tyrannosauroid it

is considered the most basal well supported member of
Maniraptoromorpha
here."

And yet, Ornitholestes appears neither in Fig. 17 nor Fig. 18. >>>>>>>>> Their

trees apparently don't

show the breadth of Maniraptoromorpha. More sloppiness.

That's because as stated those figures were pruned to emphasize >>>>>>>> important stuff. For the full tree, see F

ig. S2.>

Also, to a layman like me, it seems peculiar that they would >>>>>>>>> use 700

characters,

and claim that their choice is better than that of Maryanska >>>>>>>>> et. al.,
and yet it takes so little change to make some pretty big shifts. >>>>>>>> Not clear what part of that seems peculiar. But the last bit is a >>>>>>>> problem that's common to trees using paleontological data. It >>>>>>>> results

from the limited information in skeletal characters and the
large amount
of missing data even for skeletal characters.

"A Deinonychosauria including troodontids and dromaeosaurids was >>>>>>>> recovered as in many recent analyses. Positioning troodontids >>>>>>>> closer to

Aves than dromaeosaurids only requires a single additional step, >>>>>>>> but
non-eumaniraptoran troodontids are less parsimonious at six more >>>>>>>> steps.
Scansoriopterygids form the first branch of Avialae, matching their >>>>>>>> stratigraphic placement, and constraining them as basal paravians >>>>>>>> instead is only one step longer. Their other suggested position as >>>>>>>> oviraptorosaurs requires 12 more steps though, so is unlikely. >>>>>>>> While
Pedopenna emerges as a scansoriopterygid in the MPTs, one step >>>>>>>> moves the
fragmentary specimen to Archaeopterygidae instead. The juvenile >>>>>>>> Zhongornis branches next, with alternative positions in
Scansoriopterygidae or Confuciusornithiformes being four and >>>>>>>> five steps
longer respectively."

The placement of the enigmatic Scansoriopterygids has been highly >>>>>>>> varied. Check out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scansoriopterygidae
The only tree it shows puts them well outside Avialae, and >>>>>>>>> above the

tree there is a long

discussion of numerous other analyses.

Not sure of your point. Are you claiming that we should judge a >>>>>>>> phylogeny on the basis of whether it's represented in Wikipedia? >>>>>>>>

I suggest you compare the Mortimer et.al. matrix with one or >>>>>>>>> more of

the ones

among the analyses listed.

The proper citation, incidentally, is "Hartman et al.". And
haven't the
authors done that comparison already? See Fig. S1. I also note >>>>>>>> that the
legitimacy of all this is enhanced, if any such were necessary, >>>>>>>> by my
observation that the editor was Hans-Dieter Sues.

I ask again: what, if any of this, is relevant to the question that >>>>>>>> began the post?

On 9/8/22 6:59 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:55:52 PM UTC-4, John Harshman >>>>>>>> wrote:

On 8/30/22 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, John Harshman >>>>>>>>>> wrote:

More importantly, the article in question is a legitimate >>>>>>>>>>> contribution to the paleontology literature,

How do you know? Did you investigate the matrix (or matrices?) >>>>>>>>>> that

Mortimer and co.

used to generate their phylogenetic trees in Fig. 17 and Fig. 18? >>>>>>>>

No. I just read the paper. Did you?

I've read enough of it to see two deficiencies and several peculiar >>>>>>> details.

Which of those details is relevant to whether the article is a >>>>>>> legitimate contribution, and if so, why?

Do you disagree?

Yes. To begin with, a simple scan shows that they nowhere mention >>>>>>> which taxon
they used to root the tree. Very sloppy writing, refereeing, and >>>>>>> editing is to blame, wouldn't you say?

Not true. The outgroup to Maniraptoromorpha is stated to be a large >>>>>>> selection of taxa, with Dilophosaurus as the ultimate outgroup. >>>>>>>

Just above Fig. 17 is the following sentence:

"As *Ornitholestes* has never been recovered as a tyrannosauroid it >>>>>>> is considered the most basal well supported member of

Maniraptoromorpha
here."

And yet, Ornitholestes appears neither in Fig. 17 nor Fig. 18. >>>>>>>> Their

trees apparently don't

show the breadth of Maniraptoromorpha. More sloppiness.

That's because as stated those figures were pruned to emphasize >>>>>>> important stuff. For the full tree, see F

ig. S2.>

Also, to a layman like me, it seems peculiar that they would use >>>>>>>> 700

characters,

and claim that their choice is better than that of Maryanska et. >>>>>>>> al.,
and yet it takes so little change to make some pretty big shifts. >>>>>>> Not clear what part of that seems peculiar. But the last bit is a >>>>>>> problem that's common to trees using paleontological data. It

results
from the limited information in skeletal characters and the large >>>>>>> amount
of missing data even for skeletal characters.

"A Deinonychosauria including troodontids and dromaeosaurids was >>>>>>> recovered as in many recent analyses. Positioning troodontids

closer to
Aves than dromaeosaurids only requires a single additional step, but >>>>>>> non-eumaniraptoran troodontids are less parsimonious at six more >>>>>>> steps.
Scansoriopterygids form the first branch of Avialae, matching their >>>>>>> stratigraphic placement, and constraining them as basal paravians >>>>>>> instead is only one step longer. Their other suggested position as >>>>>>> oviraptorosaurs requires 12 more steps though, so is unlikely. While >>>>>>> Pedopenna emerges as a scansoriopterygid in the MPTs, one step >>>>>>> moves the
fragmentary specimen to Archaeopterygidae instead. The juvenile >>>>>>> Zhongornis branches next, with alternative positions in
Scansoriopterygidae or Confuciusornithiformes being four and five >>>>>>> steps
longer respectively."

The placement of the enigmatic Scansoriopterygids has been highly >>>>>>> varied. Check out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scansoriopterygidae
The only tree it shows puts them well outside Avialae, and above >>>>>>>> the

tree there is a long

discussion of numerous other analyses.

Not sure of your point. Are you claiming that we should judge a >>>>>>> phylogeny on the basis of whether it's represented in Wikipedia? >>>>>>>

I suggest you compare the Mortimer et.al. matrix with one or >>>>>>>> more of

the ones

among the analyses listed.

The proper citation, incidentally, is "Hartman et al.". And
haven't the
authors done that comparison already? See Fig. S1. I also note >>>>>>> that the
legitimacy of all this is enhanced, if any such were necessary, >>>>>>> by my
observation that the editor was Hans-Dieter Sues.

I ask again: what, if any of this, is relevant to the question that >>>>>>> began the post?

'
This is the fifth of five tests that you did in replies to your OP >>>>>> or replies to replies....
Six posts on the 8th of September.
Couldn't you have done any of them on the original thread?
That's where I've been looking for a reply for the last five days. >>>>>> Or you could have told me about your tests in the "False
Dichotomy..."
thread where we communicated until well into Friday.

Having trouble with usenet these days. Posts never load, posts
disappear. You see only the successful tests. I'm lucky that reply >>>>> turned up anywhere.

As did five earlier ones, including the OP. See above.

Have you made sure your internet connection is good both before
and after you attempt the posts?

Now, a request: let me know whether YOU see this post.
Because I don't want for you to wonder what happened to me after
tomorrow evening. I'll be on a posting break starting then and
ending on Monday, the 26th. Then, if your troubles are over,
I will deal with what you've kept repeating about Mickey
on this thread, and also on the "False Dichotomy..." thread.

More than anything else, I would like to know why you found it necessary >>> to belabor who's a paleontologist and who isn't, in the apparent belief >>> that I had at some time claimed to be a paleontologist.

You've shown that I misinterpreted what you had said about yourself,
and so I've gotten the message loud and clear that you don't
consider yourself to be one.

But it never was primarily about you. It was because of your
inconsistent standards as to who is to be considered a paleontologist
as far as sci.bio.paleontology is concerned. You were quite
protective of Oxyaena's claim to be a paleontologist without
ever asking her what her qualifications were. Now you claim
that to be one, one must "do paleontology" [whatever that means to you]
and have published a research paper on paleontology
in a (respected?) scientific journal. Just how changeable
are your opinions on this?


The bottom line is this: It's up to us to set standards to scrutinize
any Tom, Dick, Harry or Shirley who comes waltzing into
sci.bio.paleontology claiming to be a paleontologist.
That also applies if they claim that they live with a paleontologist.
[Recall that Oxyaena first claimed that "my husband" is a paleontologist, >> and only claimed to be a paleontologist later.]

If we wait too long to set these standards, we may lose
control of the situation, and s.b.p. will be on the road
to extinction. We've got it a nearly dozen-year lease on life
since the beginning of 2011, and I for one would like
to see that continue as long as I post here.

Third try: I don't think there are any fake paleontologists posting here
at the moment, and even the one real paleontologist who posts has not to
my knowledge claimed to be one. So you seem to be seeking a solution to
a non-problem.

But how about this? Assume people are what they say they are, whether paleontologist, mathematician, or bricklayer, until there is good
evidence that they aren't. If for some unknown reason you need
confirmation of professional status, ask for a citation to one of their publications. Non-problem solved.

So that one worked. How about this one?

Yep. Let me try. Testing testing one two three.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)