[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: New dinobird "Sinovenator"
> It seems to me to be too specialized to be a truly primitive
Wait, wait. Nobody said it was the ancestral troodontid. It's not a
metataxon -- so what? In addition, everyone would expect much earlier
troodontids from phylogenetic bracketing, even without *Koparion*, the
slightly older teeth from Guimarota and the considerably older teeth from
> 1 Troodontiformes Kinman, 2002?
> 1 Plesion Sinornihoides
> 2 Pl. Byronosaurus
> 3 Troodontidae
> ? Plesion Bagaraatan
> 2 Plesion Sinoventator
Requires lots of convergence between "Troodontiformes" and *Sinovenator*, or
a very long morphological branch for *Bagaraatan*. Evidence please :-)
Thanks for showing how you code polytomies (in another post).
> 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).
`--all other reasonably known ones
Note that this is an even simpler addition of *Sinovenator* and an unnamed
node to our previous cladograms (along with, er, nothing, and even without a
change in any coding numbers). =8-)
> I actually suspect that
> Sinovenator will actually be a member of Archaeopterygiformes, more
> than Family Dromaeosauridae (sensu stricto).
Just to make sure -- "derived" doesn't mean "closer to Neornithes", it means
having a longer branch (having evolved further away from some common
> If more primitive
> troodontiforms are found, I would expect them to be propubic to mesopubic
> (not opisthopubic like Sinovenator). We shall see.
At least a testable speculation =8-)