[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Let me get this right....
On Sat, 3 Feb 1996 Stang1996@aol.com wrote:
> Ar Co Ty Tr O E Av Al B Ca
> \ \ \ \ / / \ / / /
> \ \ \ \/ / \/ / /
> \ \ \ / / \ / /
> \ \ / / / /
> \ \/ / / /
> \ \ / / /
> \ \/ / /
> \ \ / /
> \ \ / /
> \ \/ /
> \ / /
> \ /
> Ar = Archaeopterygidae (including Dromeosaurinae); Co = Compsignathidae; Ty =
> Tyrannosauridae (including Aublysodontidae); Tr = Troodontidae; O =
> Ornithomimosauria; E = Enantiornithoformes; Av = Avimimidae; Al =
> Alverezsauridae; B = all other Birds; Ca = Carnosauria.
> I know I'm leaving out quite a few advanced theropods, but I did put in the
> important ones (according to the cladogram). Is this even close to right?
> Hmm... I wonder why there is no therizinosauroidea in my cladogram? Ya,
> that's for you Tom.
Pretty good, but incomplete. There are some other groups more closely
related to birds than to allosaurs.
Also, thanks to Dinogeorge's list of enantiornithian features, it looks
unlikely that arctomets are really close relatives of these birds. When
I suggested it, I was referring to enantiornithians in the vague sense of
"primitive birds," used rather freely be many authors.
Here's a stab at another cladogram describing my current thoughts:
Ca Orl Th El Ov Ar ?Co ?Av Ty Orm ?Sp Tr Al En Bi
\ \ \ \/ \ \ \ \ \ \/ \ \/
\ \ \/ \ \ \ \ \/ \/
\ \ \ \ \ \ \/ /
\ \ \ \ \ \/ /
\ \ \ \ \/ /
\ \ \ \ \ /
\ \ \ \ \/
\ \ \ \/
\ \ \ /
\ \ \ /
\ \ \/
Ca = Carnosauria; Orl = Ornitholestidae; Th = Therizinosauroidea; El =
Elmisauridae; Ov = Oviraptoridae; Ar = Archaeopterygiformes (incl.
Dromaeosauridae); Co = Compsognathidae; Av = Avimimidae; Ty =
Tyrannosauridae; Orm = Ornithomimosauria; Sp = Spinosauria; Tr =
Troodontidae; Al = Alvarezsauridae; En = Enantiornithes; Bi = other birds
> Peter Buchholz
Questions and comments appreciated.
Pacific Lutheran University
Tacoma, WA 98447
"If you can't convince them, confuse them." -- Harry S. Truman