On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 2:58:45 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
> On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 2:12:01 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 12:04:59 PM UTC-7, 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?
> > > > >>> 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?
> > > >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?
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > <snip nasty, irrelevant, insincere personal remark by yourself>
> > >
> > > If you claim to be innocent of these charges, expect a thorough, many-faceted rebuttal.
> > > Peter Nyikos
> > > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
> > > University of So. Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
> > > http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> > I can't tell if you're actually interested in this sort of thing, but:
> >
> > https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1134/S1028334X21070047.pdf
> >
> > presents another, later (2021) phylogenetic tree. Note that Deinonychus appears, but no "deinonychidae". The same tree in a
> > slightly more familar format is displayed in the Wiki entry on Deinonychus. Your quest for a "true" tree
> > is confusing to me. Trees are produced using data. DIfferent data, different trees. They're hypotheses, right?
> > As far as paleontology goes, "truth" and certainty is only possessed by creationists and fools. At some
> > fine-grained level it's problematic to identify exact relationships between organisms that have been
> > extinct for ten of millions of year, particularly from only morphological evidence.
> Oops, that link no longer works. Try
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7099077/pdf/41598_2020_Article_61480.pdf

And scratch that, copy-paste error. Sorry