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

Re: Scaly tyrannosaurs; fact or fiction?



> > Of course. Tyrannosaurs are definitely closer to birds than (to)
> > *Sinosauropteryx*, and if I'm right, they're even closer to birds than
> (to)
> > dromaeosaurs + *Archaeopteryx*...
>
> This isn't nearly so certain as you think.  Several analyses (Forster et
al.
> 1998, Xu et al. 1999, my own :-) ) place tyrannosaurs just below
> compsognathids in their analyses.

How come? Do interpretations of the tyrannosaur carpal differ? (standard
interpretation AFAIK: fusion of semilunate + radiale + ulnare ?+ distal
carpal 3)

> As for tyrannosaurs being closer to
> neornithines than dromaeosaurids, well it's fairly unique, I'll give you
> that.  Only Thulborn (1984) supported that as far as I know (even Paul
> (1984, 1988)and Jackson agree dromaeosaurids are closer to birds).

As long as I don't know whether my paper has been published (cheer up, I
might know this tomorrow ;-) ) I won't say more than "heh, heh". I do agree,
however, that the dromaeosaurids are the closest known relatives of
*Archaeopteryx* (and *Rahonavis*, maybe), just I can't find synapomorphies
linking exclusively *A.* and pygostylians, except for probably the reverted
hallux (convergence? whatever) and the triradiate palatine (I don't know
what Elzanowski has to say on this, I haven't read his latest paper;
convergence? whatever).
    Just forgot, who's Jackson?

> On the other hand, if it was based
> on a real ornithischian specimen, I'd be very interested ..... :-)

It isn't the recently announced Jeholosaurus, is it?