[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Mickey Mortimer wrote:
<Slight disagreement. While it is true Caudipteryx and Microvenator
have never been in a published phylogenetic analysis together, the
segnosaur/oviraptorosaur/Caudipteryx trichotomy has been tested. Both
Tom Holtz and I have included all three in our unpublished analyses. I
find (Segnosauria (Caudipteryx + other oviraptorosaurs)), Holtz finds
(Caudipteryx (Segnosauria + Oviraptorosauria)). Not a consensus, but
Yes, the Therizinosauroidea and Oviraptorosauria clade has been
tested repeatedly with much of the same characters coming up to
diagnose it, so this has been strictly validated in morphology and
cladistics since 1994. Cool; I wasn't contesting this. *Microvenator*
lacks a few key characters and possesses a few more, with several
features that make it plesiomorphic -- it's a pretty basal animal in
this group. *Caudipteryx* appears to be even more basal, but still, we
cannot know their relative positions to each other without them _both_
being explicitly tested together. This has not been done, and the
available literature on *Caudipteryx* is not sufficient to appraise an
analysis, at least for those who've not seen the specimens themselves,
like me, where some skull and vertebral features have not been
elaborated upon. Plus, I don't agree that the preserved evidence shows
pelvic orientation as has been suggested by some authors, and so the
evidence needs to be reevaluated.
Jaime A. Headden
Where the Wind Comes Sweeping Down the Pampas!!!!
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!