Thank you for the reference to Renesto and Binelli in 2005. I found this >
http://www.rivistaitalianadipaleontolog … i_2006.pdf

It does not actually reject the idea that pterosaurs and birds are sister taxa.
And it uses the basal pterosaur Eudimorphodon, rather than the advanced Pterodactyloidea.

Also the Nesbitt study does not include advanced pterosaurs either.

Are you aware of anyone who has looked at the possible connection between advanced pterosaurs and birds?

Thanks for your help.

Repeatedly asking the same question will not get you a different answer. Dr Hone (who by anyone's standards is an expert in this field) has explained the current evidence and why your suggestion does not fit with that work and that there is no evidence to support it. Asking for evidence that something is not the case is the equievalent of askling for evidence that the moon is not made of green cheese or that Elvis isn't alive and living in Blackpool! You are of course correct that it is a possibility - very little in science is an absolute. All we as scientists can say is there is no solid evidence to support your suggestion.

This thead is now closed.

I for one am increasingly convinced you are John / Jack / Socrates. If so then this is sock-puppetry as you change your name again and send in more questions as someone else. If you really have read and do understand the literature and what is in it, then you really don't need us to answer these questions, you should be able to see why this idea is wrong. Wasting our time demnding responses you have already had a number of times does no one any favours.