[001]
albertonykus
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I used the non-eumaniraptor paravian example to show that it\'s not possible at the moment to settle on any one phylogenetic tree and that several recent independent analyses have had different results (though none are particularly far from each other). Not to mention that the article cautions, \
to:
I said deinonychosaur because that is the result from the main paper in support of \\\'\\\'Archaeopteryx\\\'\\\' as a non avialian, and used the non-eumaniraptor paravian example to show that it\\\'s not possible at the moment to settle on any one phylogenetic tree and that several recent independent analyses have had different results (though none are particularly far from each other). Not to mention that the article cautions, \\\"... working out the relationships among these confusing and often very similar feathered little maniraptorans is not going to be easy. Indeed, don’t go thinking that the notion of a non-avialian \\\'\\\'Archaeopteryx\\\'\\\' is necessarily here to stay!\\\" For Theropoda, there is a \\\"translate to English\\\" button at the top of the page, and in any case that isn\\\'t required to read the phylogenetic tree in the article. On statistics, in any result of a phylogenetic analysis, each relationship in the phylogenetic tree comes with a [[http://www.megasoftware.net/WebHelp/part_iv___evolutionary_analysis/constructing_phylogenetic_trees/statistical_tests_of_a_tree_obtained/bootstrap_tests/hc_bootstrap_test_phylogeny.htm bootstrap value]] that is an indicator of how likely the topology is correct. My point is that it\\\'s impossible to ascertain where archaeopterygids go in Paraves. They could be non eumaniraptors, they could be deinonychosaurs, they could be basal avialians. It might be best to simply say that they are basal paravians of some sort for now, because this is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon.
