Don't know, but some people seem to think publishing images of embryos is important, and some people seem to think it would be easy to tell one from another.
Some people think it's important to say that published images of embryos have errors. I have asked to have the specific errors pointed out.
while we are on an ontogeny/phylogeny kick, a side-issue:
I recall hearing that all land mammals have a normal complement of seven cervical vertebrae. I don't know that this is so, and do not know if it holds true for marine mammals, but I do know that it holds true for several rather widely separated species of land mammal.
Is it so? Is it so, including the marsupials and the monotremes?
If it is so, set it aside for a moment.
What is the normal cervical vertebrae number for birds, fish, amphibians, and reptiles?
What were the normal complements for the sauropods, therapods, etc...
depending on the data, it seems to me that the uniform land mammal complement of cervcal vertebrae, used so diversely and *contrasted with different complements in different classes of animals to perform similar tasks* forms a rather strong argument in favor of common descent.
thoughts?