How many fossils are "out of place"?

[scd]

@John_Harshman

For one thing, your measure of discordance is unclear.

@ibstedt

I cannot find the number 50% anywhere in the paper

@Roy

But that isn’t what you’ve done.

ok. as roy pointed out- my main idea is that if the morphological tree doesnt fit with the molecular one- its out of place case. if in general about 50% of the fossils contradict their molecular phylogeny- then they are “out of place” since they dont follow their true evolutionery order. so if by the morphological tree species A is suppose to be closer to species B than to species C, and then the molecular tree shows that actually species B is closer to species C, they are “out of place”.

@Roy

In the absence of any attempt to show that the level of clashes in the mammal phylogenies is the norm

first: what make you think that its not the norm? second: according to this fig it seems to be the norm also at the phylum level:

(image form https://www.slideshare.net/jayswan/chapter-32-class-presentation)

even if it was not the norm its still true for mammals, and since mammals represent a major group its still give us many out of place fossils.

@Roy

your ‘argument’ leads to the conclusion that 50% of all extant mammal orders are “out-of-place” in the fossil record.

not if we have fossils of them. i never said that a species should be extinct after its more modern form evolved.