[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
> I wrote:
> >That's not *quite* correct, but I tend to agree that this is too
> >many teeth for it to be a proper ornithomimid.
> >In that case, it would be in the Coelurosauria (restricted sense)
> >or in the basal Maniraptora. ...
> But it will be much better in September :-) (see reference 23 in the
> Pelecanimimus paper)
> Anyway, we can do better than that. Pelecanimimus shares, uniquely with
> the Ornithomimidae, metacarpals of all the same length and proportions of
> the phalanges of the hand. In this respect it is more similar to valid
> ornithomimids than to Harpymimus.
Ah, this is important. Assuming for now that this is a valid
synapomorphy, not a convergence, it forbids placing Pelecanimimus
is a stem group ("Coelurosauria") AND Harpymimus in Ornithomimosauria.
[That would make either the "stem" group or the ornithomimosaurs
polyphyletic, which no biologist will accept].
> Also, it shares with all
> ornithomimosaurians and all troodontids the bulbous parasphenoid capsule
> (an unusual structure of the braincase). Therefore, the body of evidence
> shows that this animal is a member of the troodont-ornithomimosaurian clade
> (to be named in ref. 23), and additionally is closer to ornithomimids than
> to troodonts. Thus, it is an ornithomimosaurian.
This seems right given what you said above.
[And the alternative, *if* the similarities to the ornithimimosaurs
are convergent, and only under that situation, is to place it
in the same group as the Troodontidae - but this seems unlikely].
The peace of God be with you.