Entelodonts and Cetaceans

[Oxyaena]

Entelodonts, which were once thought to be Suines, are now thought to be
close relatives of the cetacean-hippo clade, belonging to the
Cetancodontomorpha, which is the last recent common ancestor of
cetaceans, hippopotamids, anthracobunids, entelodonts, and *Andrewsarchus*.

Suines themselves are the sister clade to the Cetancodontomorpha. It
wouldn't surprise me if the Cetancodontomorpha are basal to
Artiodactyla, given the body form of suines and Cetancodontomorphs. Then
again, a cursorial form may be the basal artiodactyl phenotype, since
the earliest artiodactyl known, *Diacodexis*, possessed a cursorial form.

Maybe the body form of suines is the advanced phenotype, and the
cursorial phenotype found in *Diacodexis*, the Caenotheriids,
*Leptomeryx*, the Oreodonts, Moschoids, chevrotains, and other
artiodactyls may be the basal phenotype. *Indohyus* also possessed a
cursorial body-form, and *Indohyus* was an extremely early whale. Which
just points us back to my conclusion that the cursorial phenotype is the
basal artiodactyl phenotype.
--
http://thrinaxodon.org/

"Biology only makes sense in the light of evolution." - Theodosius
Doubzhansky

[John Harshman]

Could we get a citation or three for all this?

[Oxyaena]

"Relationships of Cetacea (Artiodactyla) among mammals: increased taxon
sampling alters interpretations of key fossils and character evolution".
PLoS ONE. 4 (9): e7062. 2009. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007062. PMC
2740860 Freely accessible. PMID 19774069.

The citation for the last two paragraphs is "Mammoths, Sabertooths, and
Hominids: The Last 65 Million Years of Mammal Evolution in Europe"
released in 2004 and writtenby Jordi Augusti and Mauricio Anton.

[John Harshman]

Cool. I see Andrewsarchus is not a mesonychian, as was long suspected.

[Peter Nyikos]

I don't think it was ever a majority opinion. Carroll (1988) did not
list it as one, and emphasized the uncertainty as to its placement.

Carroll also has a figure referring to a detailed theory of van Valen
as to where the various modern ungulate orders originated. It put
Artiodactyla as coming from or near the subfamily Oxyclaeninae [1]
of the the family Arctocyonidae.

[1] Not a misspelling of Oxyaeninae, a subfamily of creodonts.

Unfortunately, the PlosOne article mentions neither Oxyclaeninae
nor Arctocyonidae. HOWEVER, it has a highly interesting possibility
about Mesonychia that DID have a majority opinion in favor
of it:

The relationships of +Mesonychia and +Indohyus are highly
unstable, however -- in trees only two steps longer than
minimum length, +Mesonychia falls inside Artiodactyla
and displaces +Indohyus from a position close to Cetacea.

What's more, Fig. 5 shows Mesonychia closer to Cetacea than the
latter is to any living ungulate clade! This is based on one
of two analyses, the more recent (2008) one, summarized in Figure 1.

So the "New Normal" of Cetacea being entrenched inside Artiodactyla
is far from "settled science", confounding those who try
to make "overwhelming majority opinion at the present
moment in time" the be-all and end-all of scientific fact.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[erik simpson]

That Fig. 5 shows no particularly close relationship between whales and hippos
is no surprise, considering that the tree is constructed entirely from fossilizable data. Inclusion of molecular characters leads to the results
shown in Fig. 2, which shows the now reasonably "settled science" conclusion
that ceteceans and hippos are sister groups. The authors note that "Trees based
only on data that fossilize continue to show the classic arrangement of
relationships within Artiodactyla with Cetacea grouping outside the clade, a
signal *incongruent* with the molecular data that dominate the total evidence
result." (Emphasis mine.)

As for Andrewsarchus (one of my favorite beasts), there wasn't much thought
given to it from its discovery in 1923 and fairly recent work. There's a fun article about it here:

http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/08/11/mesonychians-part-ii/

[John Harshman]

Sorry, but that just isn't so. The position of Cetacea is based on
overwhelming evidence from DNA sequences and retroelements, which you
apparently are unaware of. Fig. 5 is the tree that excludes all
molecular data. Why would you prefer it?

[Peter Nyikos]

Boy, do I have to eat crow on this one: Carroll DOES call it
a Mesonychid! I don't remember which account I was confusing
with Carroll's.

Ah, so the most recent analysis (2008) was actually *against*
settled science, eh?

> Inclusion of molecular characters leads to the results
> shown in Fig. 2, which shows the now reasonably "settled science" conclusion
> that ceteceans and hippos are sister groups.

Within extant groups, yes. But the case of the Mesonychids, the
quotation above indicates that their present exclusion from
Artiodactyla -- or even from being the sister group of Cetacea
within Artiodactyla -- is on tenuous ground and is by no means
"settled science."

> The authors note that "Trees based
> only on data that fossilize continue to show the classic arrangement of
> relationships within Artiodactyla with Cetacea grouping outside the clade, a
> signal *incongruent* with the molecular data that dominate the total evidence
> result." (Emphasis mine.)

Yes, but note this: the quote I gave is ALSO incongruent with Figure 5,
inasmuch as it talks about Mesonychia being very close to being inside Artiodactyla, whereas Figure 5 puts Artiodactyla far away from both groups.
So the quote raises an issue completely different from the one Fig. 5 does.

We have no DNA from Mesonychids, so their position
has to be inferred from fossil evidence. Even if the molecular
evidence shows other features of Fig. 5 to be wrong, Mesonychia
could still be the sister group of Cetacea.

> As for Andrewsarchus (one of my favorite beasts), there wasn't much thought
> given to it from its discovery in 1923 and fairly recent work. There's a fun article about it here:
>
> http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/08/11/mesonychians-part-ii/

Ah, tetrapodzoology! I have fond memories about the blog on bat
evolution, in which I belatedly participated.

I was surprised, though, to see that the article overlooked a big
reason Andrewsarchus was well known: it is named after Roy Chapman
Andrews, a very colorful person and an author of popular books,
who publicized it in books for children *inter alia*. But more
importantly, he was the director of the American Museum of Natural History,
which "just happened" to publish the article described thus in your linked
webpage:

Anyway, it owes its fame to its large size (its skull is 83 cm long),
and – importantly – to the fact that its description was published in
English, and in a relatively accessible publication (the AMNH’s
in-house journal American Museum Novitates;

To put a little twist on an old adage: "It isn't what is known about
you, Andrewsarchus, it is whom you are known by."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Chapman_Andrews

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

U. of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Oxyaena]

Peter expressing his reverence of a now long-outdated work on vertebrate
paleontology, how surprising!

Fig. 5 was the only cladogram derived without using molecular data, so
the entire point of this subthread is pretty moot. Given that you
absolutely abhor anything in science that wasn't so when you were 12,
I`m not surprised.

>
>
>> Inclusion of molecular characters leads to the results
>> shown in Fig. 2, which shows the now reasonably "settled science" conclusion
>> that ceteceans and hippos are sister groups.
>
> Within extant groups, yes. But the case of the Mesonychids, the
> quotation above indicates that their present exclusion from
> Artiodactyla -- or even from being the sister group of Cetacea
> within Artiodactyla -- is on tenuous ground and is by no means
> "settled science."

Note to readers: "Settled science" is a Nyikosism with no inherent
meaning. In fact, it's a complete and total oxymoron that could only be
offered by someone as vehemently opposed to cladistics, or for that
matter, anything in paleontology that conflicts with what he knew at age
12, such as Peter "Nostalgia Pete" Nyikos. The reason it's an oxymoron
is because nothing is "settled" in science, if something is "settled" in
science that means it's a dead field with no relevance to modern
science. In science, anything can theoretically be overturned, but I
doubt something as basic as evolution is going to be overturned anytime
soon, and contrary to dipshit's wishes, neither is cladistics.

>
>
>> The authors note that "Trees based
>> only on data that fossilize continue to show the classic arrangement of
>> relationships within Artiodactyla with Cetacea grouping outside the clade, a
>> signal *incongruent* with the molecular data that dominate the total evidence
>> result." (Emphasis mine.)
>
> Yes, but note this: the quote I gave is ALSO incongruent with Figure 5,
> inasmuch as it talks about Mesonychia being very close to being inside Artiodactyla, whereas Figure 5 puts Artiodactyla far away from both groups.
> So the quote raises an issue completely different from the one Fig. 5 does.

Fig 5 is also only based on morphological evidence. I believe no one is
surprised by your preference for Fig 5, and everything you just said was
refuted by Simpson. You're being a stubborn mule by this point, Nyikos.

>
> We have no DNA from Mesonychids, so their position
> has to be inferred from fossil evidence. Even if the molecular
> evidence shows other features of Fig. 5 to be wrong, Mesonychia
> could still be the sister group of Cetacea.

Insane troll logic. Something that Nyikos has developed into a form of
art. Earth to Peter, there's a difference between *could* and *would*.
Morphological phylogenetics is inherently unstable, and is liable to
being replaced by more accurate cladograms from molecular phylogenetics.

>
>
>> As for Andrewsarchus (one of my favorite beasts), there wasn't much thought
>> given to it from its discovery in 1923 and fairly recent work. There's a fun article about it here:
>>
>> http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/08/11/mesonychians-part-ii/

Welcome to another episode of "Peter's Useless Nostalgia Trips", with
your host, Peter "Good Old Days Incarnate" Nyikos.

>
> Ah, tetrapodzoology! I have fond memories about the blog on bat
> evolution, in which I belatedly participated. >
> I was surprised, though, to see that the article overlooked a big
> reason Andrewsarchus was well known: it is named after Roy Chapman
> Andrews, a very colorful person and an author of popular books,
> who publicized it in books for children *inter alia*. But more
> importantly, he was the director of the American Museum of Natural History,
> which "just happened" to publish the article described thus in your linked
> webpage:
>
> Anyway, it owes its fame to its large size (its skull is 83 cm long),
> and – importantly – to the fact that its description was published in
> English, and in a relatively accessible publication (the AMNH’s
> in-house journal American Museum Novitates;
>
> To put a little twist on an old adage: "It isn't what is known about
> you, Andrewsarchus, it is whom you are known by."
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Chapman_Andrews
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> U. of South Carolina
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/
>

This has been another episode of "Peter's Useless Nostalgia Trips",
starring your host, Peter "Nostalgia Pete" Nyikos.

[erik simpson]

Let's abandon the term "settled science", as I can't tell what you mean when you
say it.

Fig. 1 of the article is question is historic contect. Subfig. A is a tree
representing one estimate of the phylogeny without any genomic data (2007).
Subfig. B is a tree using genomic data (2008). Whether the 2008 result
conflicts or conflicted "settled science" or not depends on your outlook.

Fig 2 repesents that latest result with even more data, including genomic data.
This represents 20 minimum-length trees and positions Mesonichids outside
Ceteceamorpha, an only slightly longer tree would place them inside. (See Fig.3)

Fig 5 excludes genomic data, which recovers Ceteceamorpha distinct from
Artiodactyla (taking Mesonichids with them).

Excluding genomic data results in very different trees than including it. It
is obvious that the lack of genomic data for extinct taxa such as Mesonichidae
renders their positioning wrt Ceteceans problematic. It's a fine cautionary
lesson that isn't lost on paleontologists: morphology isn't a definitive tool
of comparison between highly derived taxa, particularly taxa occcupying very
different ecological niches.

[Peter Nyikos]

Don't you ever get tired of lying about me? It isn't the things *in science*
that I abhor, it is superficially scientific-sounding ideologies
like the ban against paraphyletic taxa, which I call "cladophilia".

The ban is absolute,
not even countenancing a dual classification system, as the one where
librarians amicably share the Dewey Decimal System and the Library of
Congress system, going along with whichever is adopted by the library
in which they work.

But Kardong (2012 was the last edition I saw, but I don't expect
major changes in later editions) used both in appendices at the end
of his standard text in comparative vertebrate anatomy.

Unfortunately for you, his listing for the Linnean system was more
detailed than the one for the cladistic system.

>
> >
> >
> >> Inclusion of molecular characters leads to the results
> >> shown in Fig. 2, which shows the now reasonably "settled science" conclusion
> >> that ceteceans and hippos are sister groups.
> >
> > Within extant groups, yes. But the case of the Mesonychids, the
> > quotation above indicates that their present exclusion from
> > Artiodactyla -- or even from being the sister group of Cetacea
> > within Artiodactyla -- is on tenuous ground and is by no means
> > "settled science."
>
>
> Note to readers: "Settled science" is a Nyikosism with no inherent
> meaning.

No, it is an accurate description of what Harshman routinely says
about the ban on paraphyletic taxa, and against the term
"ancestor candidate."

And it is an even MORE accurate as a description of how you,
Simpson, and Harshman talk about the theory "birds are dinosaurs."
And how Ron Okimoto talked in an OP about the hairlike structures
on Sinosauropteryx as "feathers" with Harshman elsewhere [but not
in the dozen pages of posts emanating from that OP] calling
them "protofeathers."

By the way, do you still have some protofeathers left on your
scalp? :-)

>
> In fact, it's a complete and total oxymoron that could only be
> offered by someone as vehemently opposed to cladistics, or for that
> matter, anything in paleontology that conflicts with what he knew at age
> 12, such as Peter "Nostalgia Pete" Nyikos.

Another bare faced lie.

> The reason it's an oxymoron
> is because nothing is "settled" in science, if something is "settled" in
> science that means it's a dead field with no relevance to modern
> science.

Not where "birds are dinosaurs" is concerned. Article after article
trumpets it.

> In science, anything can theoretically be overturned,

...but people like Feduccia and Lingham-Soliar are widely ridiculed
for pointing out inconvenient facts about birds and "protofeathers,"
respectively.

> but I doubt something as basic as evolution is going to be overturned
> anytime soon, and contrary to dipshit's wishes, neither is cladistics.

Confusion between the science of cladistics and the ideology
of cladophilia, noted.

> >
> >> The authors note that "Trees based
> >> only on data that fossilize continue to show the classic arrangement of
> >> relationships within Artiodactyla with Cetacea grouping outside the clade, a
> >> signal *incongruent* with the molecular data that dominate the total evidence
> >> result." (Emphasis mine.)
> >
> > Yes, but note this: the quote I gave is ALSO incongruent with Figure 5,
> > inasmuch as it talks about Mesonychia being very close to being inside Artiodactyla, whereas Figure 5 puts Artiodactyla far away from both groups.
> > So the quote raises an issue completely different from the one Fig. 5 does.
>
>
> Fig 5 is also only based on morphological evidence. I believe no one is
> surprised by your preference for Fig 5,

Actually, no one should be surprised with the way you falsely
asserted a nonexistent preference.

After all, you have an unreasoning, and totally unexplained, hatred of
me ever since we first encountered each other in talk.origins. It is
displayed every time you make indefensible insults like you do here,
and downright savagely in talk.origins.

> and everything you just said was
> refuted by Simpson.

Let's see you try to explain just HOW it was allegedly refuted.

This should be interesting.

> You're being a stubborn mule by this point, Nyikos.

You're just annoyed by the way I don't agree with y'all. You
are an actual embodiment of what your kind loves to accuse me
of in talk.origins: attacking someone for disagreeing with you.

>
>
> >
> > We have no DNA from Mesonychids, so their position
> > has to be inferred from fossil evidence. Even if the molecular
> > evidence shows other features of Fig. 5 to be wrong, Mesonychia
> > could still be the sister group of Cetacea.
>
>
> Insane troll logic. Something that Nyikos has developed into a form of
> art. Earth to Peter, there's a difference between *could* and *would*.

That's why I said *could*, you meds-requiring asshole.

> Morphological phylogenetics is inherently unstable, and is liable to
> being replaced by more accurate cladograms from molecular phylogenetics.

Good luck on replacing it for Mesonychia.


Peter Nyikos
Mathematics Professor
University of South Carolina (in Columbia)
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Oxyaena]

First off, you've never given an adequate explanation why the ban
against paraphyletic taxa is in and of itself a bad thing beyond you
yearning for the good old days of Linnaean taxonomy. Also, "cladophilia"
is another meaningless Nyikosism, unless you give adequate reasons
beyond personal preference why a preference for cladistics over
traditional systematics in modern-day taxonomy is a bad thing, this is a
pointless discussion. Also, don't you ever get tired of lying, Nyikos?
You are quite good at it.


>
>

[snip mindless drivel] Again, Peter, none of this matters unless you
define your terms and provide actual evidence beyond "I don't like it
this way". Is that so hard to do? I hope not.

>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Inclusion of molecular characters leads to the results
>>>> shown in Fig. 2, which shows the now reasonably "settled science" conclusion
>>>> that ceteceans and hippos are sister groups.
>>>
>>> Within extant groups, yes. But the case of the Mesonychids, the
>>> quotation above indicates that their present exclusion from
>>> Artiodactyla -- or even from being the sister group of Cetacea
>>> within Artiodactyla -- is on tenuous ground and is by no means
>>> "settled science."
>>
>>
>> Note to readers: "Settled science" is a Nyikosism with no inherent
>> meaning.
>
> No, it is an accurate description of what Harshman routinely says
> about the ban on paraphyletic taxa, and against the term
> "ancestor candidate."

Harshman takes it to extremes, I get that, but you haven't defined your
terms, including "settled science", which I have outlined in a snippet
you skirted around.

>
> And it is an even MORE accurate as a description of how you,
> Simpson, and Harshman talk about the theory "birds are dinosaurs."
> And how Ron Okimoto talked in an OP about the hairlike structures
> on Sinosauropteryx as "feathers" with Harshman elsewhere [but not
> in the dozen pages of posts emanating from that OP] calling
> them "protofeathers."

You conveniently forget the dinosaur tail found in amber with genuine
feathers. So much for you being a paragon of intellectual honesty, Nyikos.

>
> By the way, do you still have some protofeathers left on your
> scalp? :-)

Cute. You're conflating hair-like structures with actual hair, which you
should know true hair is only found in synapsids.

>
>
>>
>> In fact, it's a complete and total oxymoron that could only be
>> offered by someone as vehemently opposed to cladistics, or for that
>> matter, anything in paleontology that conflicts with what he knew at age
>> 12, such as Peter "Nostalgia Pete" Nyikos.
>
> Another bare faced lie.

Tell me why it is a "bald-faced lie", and then we will see if it holds
up to reason in the light of the evidence we have at hand.

>
>
>> The reason it's an oxymoron
>> is because nothing is "settled" in science, if something is "settled" in
>> science that means it's a dead field with no relevance to modern
>> science.
>
> Not where "birds are dinosaurs" is concerned. Article after article
> trumpets it.

Another example of you hating anything in paleontology that doesn't
correlate with what the state of paleontology was in 1959, when you were
`12 years old. So much for my statement being a "bald-faced lie".

>
>
>> In science, anything can theoretically be overturned,
>
> ...but people like Feduccia and Lingham-Soliar are widely ridiculed
> for pointing out inconvenient facts about birds and "protofeathers,"
> respectively.

Feduccia is a quack. There are plenty of anatomical features that link
birds and dinosaurs, such as the presence of a pelvis intermediate
between *Deinonychus* and *Buteo*. Oh, and of course, that unpleasant
little nuisance that is the dinosaur tail found preserved in amber,
complete with bonafide feathers. Then again, what does any of this have
to do with the issue of cetacean phylogeny?

>
>
>> but I doubt something as basic as evolution is going to be overturned
>> anytime soon, and contrary to dipshit's wishes, neither is cladistics.
>
> Confusion between the science of cladistics and the ideology
> of cladophilia, noted.

Typical usage of a meaningless term noted.

>
>
>>>
>>>> The authors note that "Trees based
>>>> only on data that fossilize continue to show the classic arrangement of
>>>> relationships within Artiodactyla with Cetacea grouping outside the clade, a
>>>> signal *incongruent* with the molecular data that dominate the total evidence
>>>> result." (Emphasis mine.)
>>>
>>> Yes, but note this: the quote I gave is ALSO incongruent with Figure 5,
>>> inasmuch as it talks about Mesonychia being very close to being inside Artiodactyla, whereas Figure 5 puts Artiodactyla far away from both groups.
>>> So the quote raises an issue completely different from the one Fig. 5 does.
>>
>>
>> Fig 5 is also only based on morphological evidence. I believe no one is
>> surprised by your preference for Fig 5,
>
> Actually, no one should be surprised with the way you falsely
> asserted a nonexistent preference.

Actually, you repeatedly demonstrate a preference for Fig 5, hailing it
as the one that definitively shows that whales and mesonychids are
sister groups. One only needs to look at earlier posts in this thread to
see that. Another instance of blatant dishonesty on Nyikos' part noted.
Is anyone surprised?

>
> After all, you have an unreasoning, and totally unexplained, hatred of
> me ever since we first encountered each other in talk.origins. It is
> displayed every time you make indefensible insults like you do here,
> and downright savagely in talk.origins.

Let me see what we have here: A case of psychological projection, a case
of a "Never My Fault" mindset, personal attacks etc. All the typical
hallmarks of a Nyikosian post. None of what I write is indefensible, if
you are so dense that you cannot see what many other people see, ranging
from Burkhard to Jillery (whom you slander all the goddamn time, along
with slandering me) to Wolffan (who did appear out of nowhere) to Mark
Isaac to even fucking Ray Martinez, which should say something.

Oh yeah, you're the one who first solicited me all the way back in 2013,
and you consistently reference me in talk.origins with almost a
pathological quality to it. In fact, I did a search on Google Groups for
my name on talk.origins and 10 out of 10 times you're the one mentioning me.

Here's proof:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/talk.origins/oxyaena%7Csort:date

Granted, most of what you right about me is some paranoid notion of me
being in allegiance with Wolffan and Jillery out to get you, which I
honestly find darkly hilarious. You make for great comedy, Peter, when
you're not causing me (and others) head-banging frustration. So perhaps
you need to rethink your statement. I've actually been a top-notch
contributor to sbp for a while now, unlike you I've posted on-topic
material after Harshman told me to do so, and I believe I have
successfully rehabilitated my reputation to some extent. You are the
only one who harbors any ill-will against me, almost to a pathological
degree.

>
>> and everything you just said was
>> refuted by Simpson.
>
> Let's see you try to explain just HOW it was allegedly refuted.

He refuted it by pointing out that Fig 5 was the only one that didn't
use genetic data, and the result isn't surprising for something based on
morphological data alone. The molecular data supports a close
relationship with hippos, with cetaceans and hippopotamids both forming
a clade called "Whippomorpha", the morphological data tends to support a
closer relationship with Mesonychia.



>
> This should be interesting.
>
>

[snip personal attacks]

>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> We have no DNA from Mesonychids, so their position
>>> has to be inferred from fossil evidence. Even if the molecular
>>> evidence shows other features of Fig. 5 to be wrong, Mesonychia
>>> could still be the sister group of Cetacea.
>>
>>
>> Insane troll logic. Something that Nyikos has developed into a form of
>> art. Earth to Peter, there's a difference between *could* and *would*.
>
> That's why I said *could*, you meds-requiring asshole.

Another personal attack on my character noted. Since when did fighting
fire with fire ever work, Peter?

>
>
>> Morphological phylogenetics is inherently unstable, and is liable to
>> being replaced by more accurate cladograms from molecular phylogenetics.
>
> Good luck on replacing it for Mesonychia.

Already did, see above.

[John Harshman]

On 11/30/17 6:00 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 11/30/2017 9:12 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

>>> Morphological phylogenetics is inherently unstable, and is liable to
>>> being replaced by more accurate cladograms from molecular phylogenetics.
>>
>> Good luck on replacing it for Mesonychia.
>
> Already did, see above.

The optimal available solution is to analyze morphological characters
using a molecular backbone tree, which is in effect what O'Leary et al.
did. That is, if hippos and whales are living sister groups, where do
mesonychians end up in an analysis with that constraint?

[erik simpson]

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 6:12:50 AM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> <...>

> ...but people like Feduccia and Lingham-Soliar are widely ridiculed
> for pointing out inconvenient facts about birds and "protofeathers,"
> respectively.
>

You may have missed this thread, started by Pandora back in April.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!searchin/sci.bio.paleontology/lingham|sort:date/sci.bio.paleontology/rYHvTXRll6w/JsEuC6wvAwAJ

"On the purported presence of fossilized collagen fibres in an
ichthyosaur and a theropod dinosaur

Abstract

Since the discovery of exceptionally preserved theropod dinosaurs with
soft tissues in China in the 1990s, there has been much debate about
the nature of filamentous structures observed in some specimens.
Sinosauropteryx was the first non-avian theropod to be described with
these structures, and remains one of the most studied examples.
Despite a general consensus that the structures represent feathers or
feather homologues, a few identify them as degraded collagen fibres
derived from the skin. This latter view has been based on observations
of low-quality images of Sinosauropteryx, as well as the suggestion
that because superficially similar structures are seen in Jurassic
ichthyosaurs they cannot represent feathers. Here, we highlight issues
with the evidence put forward in support of this view, showing that
integumentary structures have been misinterpreted based on sedimentary
features and preparation marks, and that these errors have led to
incorrect conclusions being drawn about the existence of collagen in
Sinosauropteryx and the ichthyosaur Stenopterygius. We find that there
is no evidence to support the idea that the integumentary structures
seen in the two taxa are collagen fibres, and confirm that the most
parsimonious interpretation of fossilized structures that look like
feather homologues in Sinosauropteryx is that they are indeed the
remains of feather homologues.
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Benton/reprints/2017Smithwick.pdf

Pandora"

The facts provided by Lingham-Soliar appear to be more than inconvenient.

[John Harshman]

...and less than facts.