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

Re: Scaly tyrannosaurs; fact or fiction?

> > How come? Do interpretations of the tyrannosaur carpal differ? (standard
> > interpretation AFAIK: fusion of semilunate + radiale + ulnare ?+ distal
> > carpal 3)
> Tyrannosaurids had five carpals, including one corresponding to the
> maniraptoran semilunate, like ornithomimids.

Let me guess -- radiale, intermedium, ulnare, semilunate, distal carpal 3?

> > As long as I don't know whether my paper has been published (cheer up, I
> > might know this tomorrow ;-) )

I still don't know. The editor, Jeff J. Liston, hasn't replied yet to my
email. :-(

> 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
> > 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?
> Well, my current cladogram has Archaeopteryx as the basalmost
> deinonychosaur, so I can't help you with synapomorphies shared by
> Archaeopteryx and pygostylians, exclusive of dromaeosaurs.


> Deinonychosaurs
> are still the sister group of Yandangornis+Pygostylia however.  Elzanowski
> never mentions the triradiate palatine of Archaeopteryx, though I should
> note that oviraptorids have this character too.  As caenagnathids lack it,
> it was probably due to convergence.

=8-) So triradiate palatines can evolve by convergence. -- Interesting that
Elzanowski doesn't mention it, because his & Wellnhofer's JVP paper on the
seventh specimen of *Archaeopteryx* (March 1997, I think) explicitely says
*A.* is a bird because of its triradiate palatine...

> I was speaking of John Jackson, former dinosaur list member and advocate
> secondary flightlessness and paraphyletic pygostylians.  Very unique
> phylogeny.  Read more at his website:
> http://www.geocities.com/strangetruther/jj2ftree.html  .

Thanks! In fact, he has asked me a few things offlist, but he only sent his
email address and his first name... He writes he is no longer a list member
because he has been too addicted to the list (?!?).

> Regarding your phylogeny, I'd be interested to know what you place as the
> sister group to Pygostylia.  Oviraptorosauria?

Alvarezsauridae, and then Oviraptorosauria, and then Arctometatarsalia, and
then (*Archaeopteryx* + Dromaeosauridae), for which I think the name
Archaeopterygiformes as the oldest available one would be appropriate
(otherwise Deinonychosauria). I haven't included *Yandangornis* and
*Avimimus*, though, because I hardly knew anything about the former and
thought the latter was a chimera; these may fall even closer to Pygostylia
than Alvarezsauridae.

> > It isn't the recently announced Jeholosaurus, is it?
> No, and I'm personally not convinced the specimen in question supports the
> theory of integumentary filaments on ornithischians.  I'll have to wait
> the paper to get the needed details I guess... :-(

:-( , too.