What I'm saying is that dead twig or not, it's quite possible certain forms are being called transitional forms merely because they seem to fit a certain type, not because there's evidence that they evolved from the previous form and into the next form.
Most science writing is sloppy. If you read journals or discuss the issue with biologists, you find that no one claims specific fossils represent direct ancestors or descendants of any specific creature. That would be like finding a human bone in a random grave and declaring it to be your ancestor.
The problem with science writing is the same problem faced with every kind of writing. If you try to anticipate every possible misinterpretation, or if you try to be one hundred percent precise, you wind up being dry and tedious.
What writers on evolution face is an entire industry devoted to quote mining and picking apart every loose construction.