[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Digit Loss
In a message dated 6/8/01 7:49:32 PM EST, Mickey_Mortimer11@email.msn.com
<< George Olshevsky wrote-
> The describers keep Eotyrannus outside Tyrannosauroidea
> (whatever that is these days) as a sister group, so to this extent our
> phylogenetic hypotheses agree.
Actually, the authors place Eotyrannus within the Tyrannosauroidea, which is
defined as all taxa more closely related to Tyrannosaurus than to
Ornithomimus or Deinonychus. >>
Right, so they did. At one point I thought Tyrannosauroidea was
Aublysodontidae plus Tyrannosauridae (though now I think Aublysodontidae is
just juvenile/subadult Tyrannosauridae), and they do exclude Eotyrannus from
that. Hence the phrase "whatever that is these days" above. Their def of
Tyrannosauroidea is more or less my def of Tyrannosauria.
Speaking of digit loss, I still haven't seen anything in print that shows
Ostrom was incorrect in giving Compsognathus three metacarpals but only two
digits. Still seems odd that not one phalanx of either digit III is preserved
in the type specimen of C. longipes, even though between them the third
digits have almost half of the manual phalanges. Other Compsognathus-like
small theropods do show three manual digits, but they're not Compsognathus
itself. I'd say the manual digit count of Compsognathus itself remains open.