Re: New dinobird "Sinovenator"

[NJPharris@aol.com]

In a message dated Fri, 15 Feb 2002  3:12:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Ken 
Kinman" <kinman@hotmail.com> writes:

>      The description of Sinovenator prompts to delurk momentarily on 
> coelurosaurian systematics.   The authors decision to assign Sinovenator as 
> a "Troodont" is apparently being accepted with little challenge.  I somewhat 
> disagree.

Why so?  The metatarsus certainly contains characters found nowhere outside the 
Troodontidae, and the braincase and skull roof (from what I've seen) look very 
troodontish as well.

Note that nothing I have said *proves* anything.  There are many people far 
more qualified to comment on this specimen than I, and even they cannot *prove* 
anything.  All I meant to do is indicate that a troodontid assignment for this 
specimen is perfectly reasonable, even on a cursory, subjective level.


>       It seems to me to be too specialized  to be a truly primitive 
> troodont, and it's inclusion therein is probably premature.   

Again, how so?


> Note that this is a simple addition of Plesion Sinovenator to my 
> previous classificiation (along with the proposed elevation of troodonts 
> from plesion status to full Ordinal status).  

..whatever the hell that means...


> If more primitive 
> troodontiforms are found, I would expect them to be propubic to mesopubic 
> (not opisthopubic like Sinovenator).

Why, when most or all of the nearest outgroups to Troodontidae have basal 
members (especially the small ones) that are meso- to opisthopubic?

--Nick P.