Is the xingu a humersa varient?

[andersp90]

you don;t even know how dumb you are do you?!

Smart enough to not call other people dumb to their face.

But ok, david. Then what does the graf show? Why are the motoro and the leopoldi branching from the same point?

If you were to be right, the leopoldi should branch from the motoro, wich it dosent?

I have said that the motoro are related but that I dident belive that the motoro was the ancestor of the leopoldi. I thourght the leopoldi and motoro had the same ancestor or each their. The graf shows that they have the same ancestor.

So why am I dumb? Why dont you actually defend your claims instead of calling names?

 

[andersp90]

you don;t even know how dumb you are do you?!
this is the paper.
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1415-47572008000200028&script=sci_arttext

Here is a quote from it ".......P. motoro, P. orbignyi, and P. scobina are true evolutionary species, and P. motoro is the ancestor...."
and a quote from you on roggenforum


DavidW wrote:
I was under the impression from the dna research that motoro seems to be the common recent ancestor, maybe I misunderstood.

Anders wrote:
No you dident. It is a possibility. The pdf said so anyway.

Again, you contradict yourself and the science.

I was wrong. After reading it a few more times, I realise that the motoro is not the ancestor to the leopoldi as you claim.

The motoro may be the ancestor of the scobina and orbi.

But, if you want a flat out meaningless war, I can fill this whole page with tings you were wrong about, failed theoris, contradictions and missused words.

I made a mistake, and I am not embarrassed to edmit it. Something you should learn.

 

[DavidW]

Anders, it is fine to have a hypothesis, it is NOT fine to then present it in a way that talks about it as if it is now proven, as you did in this thread.
quote:
In my mind it must be a part of the motoro complex and not the leopoldi complex as it only has one row of spines on the tail section.
quote
This strongly implies that your 'complex' is somehow an accepted fact.
I do not have to defend anything. I am not the one with a hypothesis that arbitrarily groups rays together in a 'complex' based on their number of tail spines.
Well of course they're in a 'complex', only not a complex arranged as you would have it, based on secondary characteristics.
Because of a similarity in tail spines you have lumped together rays that in many cases have different tail lengths, mouth structures, teeth structures, stomach structures etc, and probably excluded rays that internally are the same but externally appear different, but because you are unaware of it you just disregard it in your hypothesis.
"Rays don't have fins" right? remember that gem?
If I seem to flame you it is because you are selecting only facts that suit your p.o.v and you disregard those that don't fit. IMO denial is pretty stupid, and I call it like I see it.

So that everyone else on this forum can get a better idea, why don't you explain your 'complex' and how you group it and why? and also explain how it is that everyone else missed this?

I don;t have a bike right now.....did I forget how to ride?

 

[andersp90]

Anders, it is fine to have a hypothesis, it is NOT fine to then present it in a way that talks about it as if it is now proven, as you did in this thread.
quote:
In my mind it must be a part of the motoro complex and not the leopoldi complex as it only has one row of spines on the tail section.
quote
This strongly implies that your 'complex' is somehow an accepted fact.
I do not have to defend anything. I am not the one with a hypothesis that arbitrarily groups rays together in a 'complex' based on their number of tail spines.
Well of course they're in a 'complex', only not a complex arranged as you would have it, based on secondary characteristics.
Because of a similarity in tail spines you have lumped together rays that in many cases have different tail lengths, mouth structures, teeth structures, stomach structures etc, and probably excluded rays that internally are the same but externally appear different, but because you are unaware of it you just disregard it in your hypothesis.
"Rays don't have fins" right? remember that gem?
If I seem to flame you it is because you are selecting only facts that suit your p.o.v and you disregard those that don't fit. IMO denial is pretty stupid, and I call it like I see it.

So that everyone else on this forum can get a better idea, why don't you explain your 'complex' and how you group it and why? and also explain how it is that everyone else missed this?

I don;t have a bike right now.....did I forget how to ride?

Just like all the other times where I have proven you wrong... You talk about everything else and ignore the fact that you were wrong. Bah.

BUT, I was right in the fact that the motoro and leopoldi has the same ancestor. I was also right in the fact at least the henlei belongs to the same complex as the leopoldi. I am very happy with the result. Where Cf. scobina? Sp. xingu? P14? Who knows.

different tail lengths, mouth structures, teeth structures, stomach structures etc

I am glad you bring this up:

but if they are different in body shape, tail shape, mouth shape, stomach shape then the spines are not so important.

With Henleii for instance, there are 2 distinct mouth types, large and small.

You dont seem to be sure what you mean?

Leopoldi and henlei dont have excatly the same tail shape, yet they are in the same complex. Also, you say that the mouth size very within the same species. This all means that even though the flower ray has a longer tail dosent mean it isent in the same complex (wich i was wrong about as it isent). Animals from the same complex dosent have to look excatly the same or have excatly the same biologial features. That is also why it was very fitting to put fx. the flower in the leopoldi complex.

I have never claimed that my theori was fact. I should prob have added that it wasent in this thread though. Something I will remember for a other time.

And to finish of, I would like to say that I dont understand why you call me dumb. I made 1 mistake yes. It can happen. I have even corrected it.

But you... I can find at least 10 mistakes if not more if I take a short look back in the forum. You said that the "hard data" stated that the motoro is the common ancestor for all potamotrygon species. Wrong big time. You said that Potamotrygonidae is one species? Wrong big time. That Denticles are evolved teeth. Wrong big time. And I can add more if needed.

You are in absolutely NO position to call ANYONE dumb. Doing so is a sign of arrogance and stubberness.

Rays don't have fins

Give me 8 beers and I will tell you that rays have wings.

 

[aquaman45]

Hi Anders.
I can relate to many of your threads and answers,most are very good for a youngun,however i reckon you have dug yourself a hole here that could prove difficult to get out of lol!!

You dig good Anders....lol! i reckon you have made a good account of youself so far.....for a youngun..lol!......interesting reading!
No one should resort to name calling,i agree with that, we all have our opinions.
I reckon this threads gone as far as it needs too.

By the way im not that blo.dy ancient!!..ha ha!

 

[andersp90]

You dig good Anders....lol! i reckon you have made a good account of youself so far.....for a youngun..lol!......interesting reading!
No one should resort to name calling,i agree with that, we all have our opinions.
I reckon this threads gone as far as it needs too.

By the way im not that blo.dy ancient!!..ha ha!

I can only agree.

15 years of raykeeping = dinosaur.

 

[aquaman45]

I can only agree.

15 years of raykeeping = dinosaur.

Try nearer 35 years!....my god i must be a fossil...lol!!

 

[DavidW]

Anders, the 2 different mouths between Henlii doesn't say that therefore the mouth varies within that species, it means that there are 2 species (sic) of Henlii.
You say that you have proved me wrong many times ( at least 10 mistakes you say) , yet you have had to admit your own mistakes at least 3 times just in this one thread.
You still have not told the readers here what your hypothesis regarding tail spines is or how it works. Why the refusal?
You are of course right about the name calling...although that doesn't mean you are not an idiot does it?!

 

[andersp90]

Anders, the 2 different mouths between Henlii doesn't say that therefore the mouth varies within that species, it means that there are 2 species (sic) of Henlii.
You say that you have proved me wrong many times ( at least 10 mistakes you say) , yet you have had to admit your own mistakes at least 3 times just in this one thread.
You still have not told the readers here what your hypothesis regarding tail spines is or how it works. Why the refusal?
You are of course right about the name calling...although that doesn't mean you are not an idiot does it?!

The mistakes I have made are minor. Fx. putting flowers in the leopoldi complex. It was an estimated guess. There was a chance of me bieng wrong.

Also, there is no refusal to explain my former theori. The only one who asked to see it was stefanW. He is a member of stingrayforum so he has alredy seen it (wich is why i gave him the answer i did).

Also, the mouth size within a species CAN (sic, david showing his wast knowlage about biologi again.....) vary! Just take the european eel. Large mouth, and small mouth. Same species. One has adapted to feed on fish and one to feed on insectes.
So no, it dosent mean there are two henlei species. But there could be?

You know every single ray expert in the world, yet you dident know that motoros are not the ancestor for all the ray species we see now? Potamotrygonidae is 1 species! Man, they are really experts! And there are more bans on the way! You really have some super contacts.

Last post for me. You cleary dont know what you are talking about wich isent supricing....