@SomniosusW E. huanghoensis has been considered separate from the E. eisenmannae in all recent reviews of craniodental and postcranial material: https://t.co/DQraseuUWI https://t.co/Wg1ZH2rOKk https://t.co/cQdJt27qfr https://t.co/yCl3sVuVF5
For one thing, the character count is much less than in Sun & Deng's cladistic analysis last year: https://t.co/Wg1ZH2rOKk The inclusion of the continuous characters in the 2020 paper was nice, but intraspecific polymorphism was still not considered a
Another day, another cladistic(!) analysis of Equus I'd be excited for were it not for puzzling taxon exclusion and the alamaringly large number of redundant and/or correlated characters: https://t.co/RWQBPKPHZa [I'm not recovering the author's preferred
New Research: The Equus Datum and the Early Radiation of Equus in China: To approach a comprehensive understanding of the Equus Datum, we summarize the history of the study of Chinese fossil equids, from the “dragon bones” stage to scientific… https://t.co