Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Anagenesis on the pterosaur line (2)

It is suggested you read the previous post before reading this one.

In the previous post we saw that there were anagenetic events/process on the pterosaur line. What prevents that line from continuing? Nothing actually. In fact it did continue. Through the processes of cladogenesis and anagenesis it continued on into the line of primitive birds, and then modern birds, just as this entire site has been presenting.
That being the case, we can correct the placement of birds on the cladograms. We remove them from where they are misplaced now and place them on the pterosaur line.


  1. "That being the case, we can correct the placement of modern birds on the cladograms. We remove them from where they are misplaced now and place them on the pterosaur line."

    In order to construct (or reconstruct) a cladogram, you'll need to declare what characters you're using and how you're using them.
    It is simply invalid to state baldly that modern birds are to be placed "on the pterosaur line"

  2. I would not say that I have said it "baldly". I have shown the characters throughout the site that link birds to pterosaurs. It is on the basis of those facts that I suggest that birds developed from pterosaurs. Have you had a chance to read the posts? Please do. I welcome all serious questions and comments.

  3. Without (yet) passing comment on whether you have indeed shown links between pterosaurs and birds, I must say that you haven't shown how you've constructed a cladogram such as you describe: and I think you must show in some detail how you did it if you're to be taken seriously - what you suggest is a radical departure from what most scientists think they have evidence for, and would need a lot of evidence to gain acceptance.
    I'm no expert on cladistics, but I do know that cladograms are not just proposed on a whim - they are carefully worked out on the basis of compared characteristics. You would need to show the list of the characters you compared, just a a start.

  4. I am not such a big fan of cladistic analysis and cladograms as you. Cladistic analysis ignores anagenesis and consequently a cladogram is not a good tool for showing the relationships of taxa.
    I appreciate that more can be done to flesh out the details of the progression from primitive pterosaur, all the way to modern birds (flying and flightless). But I have given some general indication of the paths.
    Are you interested in working with me on delving into further detail?

  5. No, I'm afraid not.

    Leaving aside the fact that I'm not a "fan" of cladistics (how can one be a "fan" of a tool like that?), I can't see that there's any evidence at all anywhere, (on or off this blog), supporting the idea that modern birds evolved from pterosaurs.

    Furthermore, I see in the sidebar that you think that maniraptiformes are not dinosaurs.
    This is another thing that flies in the face of existing and well-founded opinion, whilst having no solid evidence of any sort to back it up.

    I really don't wish to argue this further.

    Thanks for your time.

  6. You are welcome.
    (I really did not think we were arguing, just discussing).

  7. I would like to discuss this some more

  8. If you're not a "fan" of cladistic analyses, why do you even include cladograms on your site? Also, cladistic analyses usually ignore anagenesis, because they deal with evolution on a grander scale, especially when extinct taxa, most of which don't preserve sufficient individuals to demonstrate anagenesis. Also, what does that have to do with your theory?

  9. I include cladograms because almost all the published material is in the form of cladograms.

  10. Because cladograms are based on hard evidence, which your theory doesn't seem to be. It seems to me liked you've just pulled a huge Dave Peters here.

  11. Find some specific thing you object to in the posts and we can talk. General comments are not of much value.

  12. Ok, give an example of this supposed anagenesis.

  13. The first and most obvious one is the anagenetic development of Rhamphorhynchus to Pterodactylus.
    If we can agree on that, then perhaps we have a basis for further discussion.