[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Rauhut's Thesis
> Fascinating treatise by Dr. Rauhut. Many question apart from the most
> general one how much can the matrix preparation be trusted.
> > |______Segisaurus
> > | |_Syntarsus
> > | |_Coelophysis
> > | |_Gojirasaurus
> > | |_Shuvosaurus
> > | |__Liliensternus liliensterni
> > | |__Liliensternus airelensis
> > |________Dilophosaurus
> So this part of the tree appears to be an artefact arising through the
> inclusion of Shuvosaurus- the Coelophysids should be monophyletic.
While *Shuvosaurus* does appear to be a theropod now (thanks for the link!),
it's really strange IMHO that it comes out in the middle of a good, old,
polytomic Coelophysidae. That the latter excludes *Dilophosaurus* is not
totally unexpected, as it was a rather common idea in earlier times (10, 20
years ago) that *Dilophosaurus* is close to Tetanurae or spinosaurs in
> > |______________Troodontidae
> > | |___Dromaeosauridae (including
> So a Sereno like Deinonychosauria is supported here.
> > |_________Unenlagia
> > |_____Aves (including Rahonavis)
> So were there Deinonychosaurs in South America or India? If the relative
> large Unenlagia is not exactly a Deinonychosaur and closer to the birds
> not one as yet then what exactly was it.
The evil question -- what is included in Aves here? Only *Archaeopteryx* and
*Rahonavis*, in which case Metornithes respectively Pygostylia might fall
out somewhere else...?
Many thanks for the various experiments on the position of segnosaurs. This
must have eliminated every doubt...