[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

People think I messed up. :(

I guess I have to point this out to all of y'all in detail:

I wrote:

>BTW: Sinraptor *is* related to Megalosaurus, probably about as closely
>as Tyrannosaurus is to Gallimimus (of course, that's very subjective).

>BTW: Sinraptor *shares a closer common ancestor* with Megalosaurus, than
>with Tyrannosaurus and Gallimimus.

        I will not redo the cladogram I did for Nick, but, if you think
about it, if Coelurosaurs had never been born, Carnosaurs wouldn't be all
that special, everything would be branches on the way to Allosaurus, and
we'd think of Sinraptor as a closer relative of Allosaurus, but a close
relative of Megalosaurus (and all later branchings).  Besides, all I said
was that Sinraptor and Megalosaurus *ARE* related.  And they're more
closely related to each other than anything more basal than Tetanurae.
        So, I'm not stupid, just a victim of trying to be too clever.  :)

Tom Holtz writes:
>No, objectively, Sinraptor is more closely related (i.e., shares a more
>recent common ancestor) with Tyrannosaurus and Gallimimus and Trochilis
>(hmmmmmmmmmmmm) than it is to Megalosaurus. :-)
        What manner of beast is your Trochilis?  Or is this from your new
paper (congrats, can't wait to read it, all that...).

! Jonathan R. Wagner                        !   "Camin-Sokal Pars-      !
! Graduate student sans portfolio           !    imony couldn't help    !
! jrw6f@virginia.edu                        !    you determine who      !
!  http://faraday.clas.virginia.edu/~jrw6f  !    your own mother is..." !
!     Check out the paleo sections!!!!!!    !                 * * *     !