[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: New dinobird "Sinovenator" (Warning: contains peanuts)
Ken Kinman wrote:
> The description of Sinovenator prompts to delurk momentarily on
> coelurosaurian systematics.
I think in order to "delurk" you have to actually be lurking in the first
place. Anyway, moving on...
>The authors decision to assign Sinovenator as a "Troodont" is apparently
>being accepted with little challenge.
Well, you see, Xu and Norell and others examined the specimen, and then they
did this analysis... (If you are going to challenge troodontid affinities
for _Sinovenator_ - knock yourself out. But be sure to have some supporting
data at the ready; then maybe people will start listening.)
> If more primitive
> troodontiforms are found, I would expect them to be propubic to
>mesopubic (not opisthopubic like Sinovenator).
Maybe Mother Nature had something else in mind. Again, I think you're
trying to pummel taxa into a pre-conceived phylogeny. You're banging square
pegs into round holes, so to speak.
Nick Pharris wrote:
> >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...
Oh dear, didn't you take Kinman Taxonomy 101?
>Why, when most or all of the nearest outgroups to Troodontidae have >basal
members (especially the small ones) that are meso- to opisthopubic?
Good question. Says Xu et al. (2002): "..and the opisthopubic pelvis [can
be regarded] as diagnostic of an even more inclusive clade (Metornithes)
rather than as homoplastic in dromaeosaurids and avialans as suggested
Any ideas on the functional significance of an opisthopubic vs propubic
Timothy J. Williams
Iowa State University
Ames IA 50014
Phone: 515 294 9233
Fax: 515 294 3163