[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]


On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Williams, Tim wrote:

> This is kind of what I meant.  I used the name "Maniraptoriformes" for this
> clade; I know it isn't the definition, but it approximates the content.  In
> which case, it isn't a big assumption - although, perhaps a minor
> assumption, since it assumes that _Sinosauropteryx prima_ is a basal
> maniraptoriform.

They'd only be equivalent if _Sinosauropteryx_ were an arctometatarsalian
-- something I've never seen proposed. I guess they're close, tho'.

AFAIK, Clade(_Sinosauropteryx_ + _Vultur_) may be within _Maniraptora_
(virtually identical to it, tho') or it may include _Maniraptoriformes_.

> In any case, I think we may be splitting hairs (or protofeathers) here.

This is the DML, after all. :)

> The alvarezsaurids may lie closer to the base of the Maniraptoriformes
> than _Sinosauropteryx_

Who proposed that?

 The Dinosauricon        <http://dinosauricon.com>
  BloodySteak             <http://www.bloodysteak.com>
   personal                <keesey@bigfoot.com> --> <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
    Dinosauricon-related    <dinosaur@dinosauricon.com>
     AOL Instant Messenger   <Ric Blayze>
      ICQ                     <77314901>
       Yahoo! Messenger        <Mighty Odinn>