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

Re: So here it is...



> David Marjanovic wrote-
>
> > Sure?!? *Allosaurus*?!?
>
> Yes, Allosaurus. :-) Currie and Dong (1994) state "In later theropods,
> including Allosaurus, troodontids and tyrannosaurids, the separation is
> complete." (pg.2049).

:-(

> > > and Carpenter and Currie (2000) code oviraptorids as having the
> primitive
> > condition.
> >
> > Any chance for a typo in their matrix? :-]
>
> Sure.  Matrices have typos all the time.

:-)

> I've found dozens in the
> Fukuiraptor matrix alone, which is why it's taking so long to get the
> details segment done.

:-(

> > Maybe I can "explain this away" that the actual character here is not
the
> > hole in the bone, but the presence of the air sac, which may or may not
> > invade the bone due to ontogenetic age or whatever. Of course, this is
> > hardly falsifiable...
>
> Sure..... That will hold up in court.... ;-)

:-)

> >         *Bagaraatan* doesn't go anywhere in my phylogeny, because I lack
> > information. Segnosaurs... well, I've put them into Sauropodomorpha with
> the
> > usual arguments, but this placement has become difficult to defend.
Either
> > way, one arrives at about 50 synapomorphies and 50 convergences, as
> someone
> > stated onlist a few years ago on this topic (now in www.dinosauria.com).
>
> I recommend getting a hold of the Bagaraatan article and checking this
> little thing out.  So far as I know, only Tom and I have included it in a
> phylogenetic analysis, and we disagree as to what it is :-) .  Segnosaurs
> should be very important to your hypothesis if you think oviraptorosaurs
are
> closest to birds, as the two taxa are thought to be sister groups by most.

Can you give me the ref of the *Bagaraatan* article? (Probably I can't get
the journal, anyway...)
I'll have another look at *Beipiaosaurus*. Though I'm still not sure about
its feet, I must admit that its fibular crest and its furcula (as the chance
that the block which contains the shoulder girdle comes from another fossil
seems very small) are good arguments for putting it into Theropoda.

> > Sure?!?
> > What are double-headed quadrates good for, anyway?
>
> Yep.  Ji et al. (1998) state, "The single-headed quadrate is vertical in
> orientation".  I really don't know the functional significance.

:-(

> > The tail of *Avimimus* is rather short too, AFAIK.
>
> The tail has only been discovered recently (Watabe et al. 2000), but is
> still undescribed.

Someone just posted a link to the Great Russian Dinosaur Exhibit site which
includes a photo of *Avimimus*.
What is this ref?

> It was longer than originally figured by Kurzanov
> however.

Of course.

> > > There is a difference between the lateral depressions found in the
> dorsals
> > (confuciusornithids, enantiornithines) and caudals
> > > (Patagonykus, enantiornithines) of some maniraptorans and the
> pleurocoels
> > (pneumatic foramina) found in the sacrals and
> > > caudals of caenagnathids and oviraptorids.
> >
> > Which (other than grade)?
>
> Well, a pleurocoel enters the bone and connects with a cavity in the
> centrum, wheras a depression is just... a depression.  Not that one
couldn't
> evolve into the other, but they should not be taken as the same character.

How do pleurocoels start ontogenetically?

> > Oviraptorids don't (secondarily?), but Caudipteryx has something very
much
> > like one (maybe it really has one only 3 vertebrae long).
>
> >insert insane laughter here< ;-) Fine, don't believe the authors.  Sure
> they're respectable paleontologists, but that doesn't mean they're not
blind
> (all eight of them- Ji, Currie, Norell, Ji, Zhou, Wang, Zhang and Xu).
> Caudipteryx does NOT have a pygostyle.  Sure, the distal caudals are
stiffly
> held together, but it's the same in lots of maniraptorans.  Okay, I'm done
> ranting now...calm down...next paragraph... ;-)

Okay, okay, okay...

> > I haven't addressed the radius of *Microvenator* (I didn't know about
it,
> > and animals like *Sinornithosaurus*, *Bambiraptor* or -- *Archaeopteryx*
> > would decidedly look like better candidates here) and the jaws of
> > caenagnathids (AFAIK there isn't much fusion, if any, in alvarezsaur
jaws,
> > and I have mentioned in the paper that *Oviraptor* has a tiny separate
> > coronoid).
>
> Microvenator is very odd in that its radius is very long compared to its
> humerus (93%).  This is even longer than Sinornithosaurus (77%),
Bambiraptor
> (65%) and Archaeopteryx (84-88%).  Only Jibeinia and ornithothoracines
have
> such elongate radii among theropods.

Oh!

> >         How surely identified are the ornithoid *Deinonychus* eggshells?
> Are
> > there embryos inside (_inside_, not outside like the ?nest-parasitizing
> > *Velociraptor* chicks in the oviraptorid nest)?
>
> I'm pretty sure they are just eggshells without embryos, but they haven't
> been described yet, so I'm not sure what evidence exists they are from
> Deinonychus.

Aha.
As for the mentioned chicks being *Byronosaurus* instead of
*Velociraptor*... is this in the description of *B.* in JVP? (In this case I
have overlooked that... Strange...)

> I can ignore Microraptor and Rahonavis though, as
> I'm only arguing that Archaeopteryx could be closer to pygostylians than
> arctometatarsalians, oviraptorosaurs and dromaeosaurids (none of which
> Microraptor or Rahonavis is a member of).

Does *Rahonavis* fall anywhere certain in your phylogenies, or does it jump
around as ever?

> > > - phalanges on third manual digit reduced (III-1 and III-2 sutured,
not
> > jointed; possibly ancestral to the pygostylian
> > > condition of having two non-ungual phalanges on digit III)
> >
> > Sutured??? Really sutured??? And your phylogeny supports this as being
> > reversed in dromaeosaurids???
>
> Yeah, it's odd isn't it?  I actually don't have this character included in
> my analysis yet (always work to be done...), but my phylogeny does support
> it as being reversed right now.

Now that's what's called "bizarroïd" in French...
Really, in all specimens?

> > > While the akinetic skulls of confuciusornithids could very well be
> > secondary, they do possess ascending processes on their
> > > jugals (Chiappe et al., 1999).
> >
> > What's that ref, the JVP paper on *Changchengornis*?
>
> Nope.
> Chiappe, L.M., Ji, S., Ji, Q., and Norell, M.A. 1999. Anatomy and
> systematics of the Confuciusornithidae (Theropoda: Aves) from the Late
> Mesozoic of northeastern China. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural
> History 242: 1-89.

:-( Let's see whether they have this journal anywhere in Vienna... :-/