My response to Dr. Holtz: (his text is preceded by ">>")
>>Maniraptora suffers from "too many definitions syndrome" anyway. Gauthier was explicit >>in his original definition in 1986: its modern birds and all taxa closer to them than to >>ornithomimosaurs. My 1994 "redefinition" was unwarrented: hence the creation in 1996 of >>Maniraptoriformes. Sereno's 1997/1998 "redefinition" (modern birds + Oviraptor) is >>equally unwarrented.
>>In other words, you cite a small handful of features that support your hypothesis, but do >>not deal with those which refute it (although, to be fair, you do deal with the absence of the >>hyperextendable toe in tyrannosaurs (where it is most assuredly NOT present!!!!).
There is a large number of reasons I'm still working on (the arctometatarsus, hindlimb modification, etc.), that's why I wrote: "Yes, I know it needs work and probably should be revised."
>>Of minor note, Vorona was established as a much more derived bird than the >>archaeopterygids, so other than their co-occurrance in the same quarry there is little shared >>between them among the birds.
I guess it should return to the Ornithothoraces where I found it from.
>>I am interested in your reasons for placing Microvenator in Elmisauridae (more properly >>Caenagnathidae).
Microvenator is a possible member of the Elmisauridae which is what I seem to pick up from other dinosaur sites. Caenagnathus is not a valid taxa whereas Elmisaurus is therefore the clade should be renamed to fit valid internal members.
>>If you popped the tyrannosauroids and coelurid-grade forms out of there, I'd largerly >>agree with the details. However, I think that troodontids would definitely be up in there.
About the "coelurid-grade forms", do you mean the ornitholestids and Coelurus? I'm still working on the troodontids (actually, I forgot to put them in the when I wrote my post). They could be dromaeosauroids, birds (?), arctometatarsalians or "enigmosaurs". Personally, I think they may be somewhere between birds and dromeys.
>>Ummmm... Gee, I wish I had thought of that... :-) (Holtz, 1994).
In response, I never read that paper because at the time because third graders don't have access to technical papers (they also don't know about technical papers). Also I didn't say my idea was original, I just said what my conclusions were. And my conclusions were based on the work of others. Besides, I didn't claim I thought of it first just that it was what I think about it.
>>You are mistaken about the wrist morphology of ornithomimosaurs. Their carpals are >>NOT re-expanded: they are instead reduced relative to the condition in typical theropods >>OR more derived maniraptorans.
I just meant that...No wait, I'm confused and mistaken. And you are right on that. I guess working in a museum and being a professional paleontologist gives you access to stuff I only can find in books or on the internet.
|--"Enigmosauria" Keesey, unofficial
| | |?-Caudipteryx
| | `--+--Avimimidae
| | `--Oviraptoroidea
| | |--Elmisauridae
| | | `--+?-Microvenator
| | | `--(others)
| | `--Oviraptoridae (sensu J.A. Headden, DML)
| |--Segnosaurinae (?=Enigmosaurinae)
| | |--Enigmosaurus
| | |--Erlikosaurus
| | `--Segnosaurus
| | |--Archaeornithoides
| | `--Byronosaurus
`--Dromaeosauroidea (implied Matthew & Brown, 1922)
There for now, I hold this view but I don't know what to do with everyone coelurosaurs, especially the dryptosaurids, coelurans, ornitholestids, compsognathids, tyrannosaurs and ornithomimosaurs. I think Sereno's Tyrannoraptora might be reworkable...
Just one last thing, though... WHAT ABOUT TALLUSCOATUM? No one seems to want to talk about it...