who has established him/herself as the editor of the “Pterosaur” article in Wikipedia, but there was a falsehood in there that had to be edited.
With regard to the “Origins” section, as I read it, the author reported that I did not view the fossils themselves. However, the author approved the Hone and Benton 2007 supertree analysis and the 2011 Nesbitt 2011 archosaur family tree.
The opposite is actually true.
I had first hand access to Longisquama, Sharovipteryx, Cosesaurus, Langobardisaurus and Macrocnemus, taxa that are related to pterosaurs in order of increasing phylogenetic distance (Longisquama is the closest). Hone and Benton, as in all authors of supertree analyses, did not even look at these specimens, but reported they were going to join together previous pertinent trees. Instead they only combined the trees they liked. They deleted Peters (2000) from their analysis and added a few typos to the scores to justify their deletion, as we discussed earlier. So there was no Bennett vs. Peters “contest.” W.C. Fields echoed their feelings when he said, “Go away, boy… you bother me.”
So, kids, this is what we’re dealing with.
No one wants to look at fenestrasaurs and there are people out there who are willing to flip the truth.
how long the edit will stand. Wikipedia can edited by anyone. Just thought you should know…