I have often noted the “by default” nesting of pterosaurs and Vancleavea in the archosaurs, when the larger gamut study indicates they nest elsewhere, with lizards and thalattosaurs, respectively. I can speak with authority here because the large reptile tree represents the only large test of these misfit nestings based on smaller studies that excluded the actual related forms.
you can play with it to your heart’s content.
by removing all archosauromorphs, but one, and seeing how they nest within the Lepidosauromorpha. You might find these amusing and instructive in light of the current nesting of “strange bedfellows” discussed earlier.
but you wouldn’t know that unless you realized they nested with widely known excluded taxa. Some nestings, like Caseasauria with Synapsidsida and mesosaurs with pareiasaurs are also widely known and accepted, but they’re wrong. They cannot be confirmed with the large reptile tree.
but a whole raft of professional paleontologists really needs to forget tradition and start testing for ALL possibilities before assuming an inclusion set is valid. Otherwise, all you get are the “strange bedfellows” we discussed earlier in a 9-part series starting here. This professional quagmire really needs to come to an end.
As always, I encourage readers to see specimens, make observations and come to your own conclusions. Test. Test. And test again.
Evidence and support in the form of nexus, pdf and jpeg files will be sent to all who request additional data.