On 9/24/21 12:04 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 8:44:33 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/23/21 2:49 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 4:54:48 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 9/23/21 1:14 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 1:19:50 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 7:33:25 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 10:11:18 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 6:44:17 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You've made allegations about Feduccia of a magnitude that would make you highly indignant
>>>>>>>>> if a similar allegation were made of you. And he isn't even here to defend himself -- and it
>>>>>>>>> also gets your dander up when I say something the least bit negative about an
>>>>>>>>> absent person whom you don't have a bad opinion of, yourself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Try behaving like a responsible adult and QUOTING something that backs up something along
>>>>>>>>> the lines of one of your claims about the earlier article. How long does it take to dig up the article,
>>>>>>>>> copy and paste one passage out of it and then another, incompatible passage?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't think it would take much longer than it took me to dig up the the post that was
>>>>>>>>> in the middle of our earlier discussion, figure out two of the three lines of documentation
>>>>>>>>> that I posted up there, and to paste them in. And to save you time, I'm even telling you that the last
>>>>>>>>> thirteen lines of text in it are all you need to look at.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Erik, I suppose the following one-liner of yours could come under the "Dogmatism" rubric. :)
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Haven't we seen this movie before?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Never. Nothing at all like it. Have you ever seen Harshman's main group about which Feduccia
>>>>>>> was allegedly saying inconsistent things evolved like this in the space of ONE WEEK?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dromaeosauridae ------> Coelurosauria -----> Maniraptora -----> Deinonychus
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You really need to get skeptical about your memory, Erik.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To save readers trouble: Maniraptora is a subclade of Coelurosauria, while Dromaeosauridae is a subclade of Maniraptora, and Deinonychus is a genus in Dromaeosauridae. Apparently "deinonychids" is a synonym
>>>>>>> for that one iconic genus, the sickle-clawed Deinonychus.
>>>
>>>
>>> This post is focused on an on-topic issue of phylogeny, for which the above provides context.
>>>
>>>>> Harshman has claimed "deinonychids" included more, specifically *Utahraptor*,
>
> What I had earlier wanted to know whether "deinonychids" [see above]
> was a synonym for *Deinonychus*. Note the lack of the -idae ending which would have
> made such a question sound naive.

>>>>> but the two phylogenetic
>>>>> trees at the bottom of the following webpage strongly contradict this:
>>>
>>>> Given that neither tree contains a node labeled Deinonychidae, I'm
>>>> puzzled how you think they contradict anything.
>
>>> Both have a branch tip labeled "Deinonychus," and both have one in a very different
>>> place labeled "Utahraptor." Scroll down to the bottom of the web page.
>
>> Not sure what your point is here.
>
> The point was further down in this same post. Once you saw it, it should
> have become obvious that the following comment completely missed the point:
>
>> Unless you have a definition for
>> Deinonychidae you can't say whether that very different place is within
>> it or not.
>
> You always seem to be in a hurry, preventing you from scrolling up and deleting inappropriate comments.
> Why? do you have a job that is more consuming than mine as a full-time Professor?

Simple explanation: the comments weren't inappropriate.

>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dromaeosauridae
>>>
>>> Really, now, how could anything be clearer than this?
>
>> You imagine clarity, but the clarity is the result of your confusion
>> about the issue.
>
> There was no confusion, as you should have seen if you had
> bothered to read to the end before typing this.
> My comment was a tad premature, that's all.
>
>
>>>>> About an hour ago, I've asked Harshman whether the analyses that produced these trees
>>>>> have been superseded. He completely ignored the question in his shoot-from-the-hip reply,
>>>>> and moved the goalposts.
>>>
>>>> I answered the question as it deserved, by rejecting it as based on a
>>>> false assumption.
>>>
>>> Illogically rejecting it: take a look at the two trees and ponder the implications of what you see there
>>> for your next comment. My questions below should help you.
>
>> Sure, though I'm not optimistic.
>
>>>> Deinonychidae is a family name once proposed for
>>>> Deinonychus and some of its close relatives.
>>>
>>> Did it swallow up the subfamily Dromaesaurinae, as the first tree shows it would do?
>>>
>>> Did it swallow up both Dromaesaurinae and Velociraptorinae, as the second tree shows it would do?
>>>
>>> If you combine the swallowing-ups, the trees will have it include all of Eudromaeosauria,
>>> and the genus Tsaagan. Is this really what you meant by "some of its close relatives"?
>
>> I can't answer the question. I don't know the proposed definition of
>> Deinonychidae. The only thing I could find out about it quickly was that
>> Utahraptor was another proposed member.
>
> "quickly" again suggests that something is making you do things in a big hurry.
> What is it?

Another question based on a false assumption. No point in answering.

>> And of course the name may have
>> assumed a different tree from either of the ones shown.
>
> Do you know anyone who could help you find out? Or is it just that you
> can't be bothered to find out more?

The latter.

> Anyway, you seem to have answered a question that I was hoping Erik
> would ask you, since you ducked it when I asked you: Do you know whether
> either tree has been superseded by some new analysis?
>
> And the answer is, you don't. One tree goes back to 2015, one to 2017.
> And that's a problem, given the big discrepancies.

>>> Remainder deleted, lest it distract you from the above questions.
>
>> This is a trivial point having nothing to do with phylogeny.
>
> That's because you missed the real point I was building up to, but
> it should have been obvious from the big discrepancies.

You really have to start actually saying what you mean rather than
dropping little hints, assuming you want anyone to understand you.

> It is very much a problem of phylogeny to ascertain which, if either of these
> trees, is the "true to the best of our data" tree. If you can't see that even now,
> then I have to wonder how seriously you have thought about the trees that
> challenge the conventional "wisdom" that dromeosaurs [as in "Eudromaeosauria"]
> are not secondarily flightless birds.

I had no idea you were interested in the differences between the trees.
You never said so until just now. So far, this has all been about
whether Deinonychidae should include Utahraptor. Now, if you have any
questions about the phylogenies, I suggest you consult the papers from
which the trees were taken, look at their data matrices, and try to
determine what caused the differences.

> <snip nasty, irrelevant, insincere personal remark by yourself>

You accuse me of being insincere? On what basis?

> If you claim to be innocent of these charges, expect a thorough, many-faceted rebuttal.

What charges? I can't claim innocence unless I see some actual charges.
I certainly have no interest in your thorough, many-faceted rebuttal.

You are very confused about many things, among them whether trees can
tell you whether a given group is secondarily flightless. Again I
mention Greg Paul, who places the origin of flight deep in the theropod
tree without altering the topology of that tree from the usual one.
Whether birds are theropods is a completely separate question from
whether various maniraptorans are secondarily flightless or whether
flight happened from the ground up or trees down or a host of other
possible questions.