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


I can certainly understand your irritation with reporters who can't seem to get their facts straight. Especially about this egg-eating thing. That's one reason I prefer calling them caenagnathiforms (not a perfect name, but a lot better than oviraptorosaurs in my opinion).
But I am not so concerned about this particular story, as I am the scientific conclusion that Thecocoelurus is probably not a primitive segnosaurian. Your reasons for this seem to be based on the plesiomorphic lack of certain characters, but I see no reason that early segnosaurians might not have also possessed such plesiomorphies. I think there is plenty of room for ambiguity on those grounds alone.
------- Ken
P.S. And given my suspicions about "enigmosaur" holophyly, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if Thecocoelurus turns out to be neither an oviraptorosaur nor a segnosaurian (or even a stem group thereof). If these ridges (along the ventral sulcus) did evolve independently in these two groups, they could have evolved in other coelurosaurs as well.
Darren Naish wrote:

On the Isle of Wight oviraptorosaur represented by BMNH R181, Ken Kinman wrote...

> I am not questioning it just because of its size. I am mainly questioning it because segnosaurians also have vertebrae with similar characteristics (the form of the ventral sulcus is on the list of proposed enigmosaur synapomorphies). And as Stephan noted, there isn't much to work with, so I think there is still plenty of room for ambiguity and doubt.

With all due respect, you might like to actually get hold of and read the paper. There happen to be reasons for our conclusion that it is probably not a therizinosauroid/segnosaur.

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.