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

RE: Maniraptoran Tyrannosaurs



 

 

In this case, your Tyrannoraptora clade (Tyrannosaurus + Neornithes) would actually be termed Paraves (closer to Neornithes than to Oviraptor).  Eumaniraptora (Deinonychus + Neornithes) would be one step higherthan you have it, uniting Aves and "Dromaeosauroidea".  Why do you use "Dromaeosauroidea" when Deinonychosauria (everything closer to Deinonychus than to Neornithes) would work well here?

 

|        `--Tyrannosauroidea

|           |== proto-tyrannosaurs

|           `--+--Iliosuchidae

|              |  |?-Stokesosaurus

|              |  `--+--Eotyrannus

|              |     `--Iliosuchus

|              `--Tyrannosauridae

|                 |--Alectrosaurus

|                 `--+== i.s. Alioramus, Dinotyrannus, Labocania

|                    |--Albertosaurinae

|                    |  |== i.s. Deinodon

|                    |  |--Albertosaurus

|                    |  `--Gorgosaurus

|                    `--Tyrannosaurinae

|                       |?-Aublysodon

|                       |?-Shanshanosaurus

|                       `--+--Daspletosaurus

|                          `--Tyrannosaurini

|                             |--Tarbosaurus

|                             `--+?-Nanotyrannus

|                                `--Tyrannosaurus

 

Regarding your Iliosuchidae, why do you include Eotyrannus? <<

 

For Iliosuchus’s placement see Foster & Chure, 2000

 

Foster, J. R, and Chure, D. J., 2000, An ilium of a juvenile Stokesosaurus (Dinosauria, Theropoda) from the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic: Kimmeridgian), Meade County, South Dakota: Brigham Young Univeristy, Geology Studies, v. 45, p. 5-10.

 

Also in that volume are;

 

Chure, D. J., 2000, Utah’s first Allosaurus – Marsh’s “megalosaurus” specimen rediscovered: Brigham Young University, Geology Studies, v. 45, p. 1-4.

 

And

 

Maxwell, W. D., and Cifelli R. L., 2000, Last evidence of sauropod dinosaur (Saurischia: Sauropodomorpha) in the North American Mid-Cretaceous: Brigham Young University Geology Studies, v. 45, p. 19-24.

 

Which describes very small brachiosaurids teeth which are believed to be from an adult.

 

>>Are you aware that the only element we could even compare in Eotyrannus and Stokesosaurus is the premaxilla?  The ilium of Eotyrannus is very fragmentary.  Dinotyrannus and Nanotyrannus are both young Tyrannosaurus rex (Carr, 1999). <<

 

And Ford and Chure in press, as well as the Jordan Theropod (also, Carr & Williamson, 2000).

 

Carr, T. D., and Williamson T. W., 2000, A review of tyrannosauridae (Dinosauria, Coelurosauria) from New Mexico: In: Dinosaurs of New Mexico, edited by Lucas S. G., and Heckert A. B., New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Sciences, Bulletin 17, p. 113-145.

 

>>Shanshanosaurus seems to be a juvenile Tarbosaurus (Currie and Dong, in prep.).  Aublysodon is an indeterminate juvenile tyrannosaurid tooth, but remains referred to it have been shown to be Daspletosaurus (OMNH specimen) and Tyrannosaurus (Jordan theropod). <<

 

Ditto, see above.

 

 >>As Aublysodon teeth have been reported from many sites ranging from Kimmeridgian-Maastrichtian, they are probably simply the teeth of juvenile tyrannosaurids.<<

 

I totally agree.

 

Mickey Mortimer

 

Tracy L. Ford

P. O. Box 1171

Poway Ca  92074