[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Re: Not carnosaurs, this time...
Stan Friesen writes:
>Nice, but I find the presentation around nodes 9 and 10 a little
>confusing. Could you post an "enlargement" of that area so I
>can see the intended structure more clearly.
! +------Tyrannosaurus baatar
! ! (Paul's "juvenile" T. bataar)
-+ +----10 <- Tyrannosaurus
! ! !
! ! ! +--Tyrannosaurus rex
! ! ! /
! ! +-+
! ! \
! ! +--Tyrannosaurus bataar
! +--------Horner's "intermediate tyrannosaur"/"metataxon"
>Am I right that the cladogram supports including Tarbosaurus
Well, as much as any cladogram can, it certainly does not refute
such a reference (although it does refute the placement of A. sternbergi in
Albertasaurus *or* Gorgosaurus (no, TRHJr, size of teeth was not a
character), but I am somewhat skeptical of this, since it is largely based
on sexual selectors (lacrimal horns), and the FMNH has a lot on common with
Dapletosuarus and arctunguis/sarcophagus.
As an aside, several people have pointed out that Alioramus may be
closer to "advanced" tyrannosaurids. Unfortunately, I cannot determine
such characters from skull drawings, although anyone with data to
contribute would be pretty cool in my book.
P.S. For all you taxonomists out there, why do we call these the
Tyrannosauridae, a simple family, when the more similar Ornithomimids get a
supra-familial taxon? I think Tyrannosauridae should be limited to a
node-based taxon of the most primitive taxon now referred to Albertosaurus
+ T. rex, and the outgroups should be placed in Tyrannosauroidea (all
thereopods closer to T. rex than to Ornithomimus).
Which then brings up, what do we call the noe of Ornithomimus +
Tyrannosaurus. Tom Holtz?