[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Mickey's Coelurosaur Analysis Update
Sorry for the possible double posting of the original, I know I got two
copies for some reason.
Nick Gardner wrote-
> Looks pretty standard, aside from the caenagnathoid polytomy.
I have a feeling it's due to the fact Incisivosaurus preserves only the
skull, while Nomingia preserves only the axial skeleton (and pelvis and
hindlimb, which were not examimined). Thus, Incisivosaurus was never a
caenagnathoid, but Nomingia could be either that or sister to
Incisivosaurus. Of my characters uniting Nomingia and Caudipteryx-
1. Caenagnathoids and Nanshiungosaurus also have 10 dorsals, so this is an
enigmosaurian synapomorphy. It was included as character 117, state 3.
2. Their shared low caudofemoral ratios (<1.9), absent in oviraptorids and
segnosaurs, were included as character 154, state 2.
3. Their shared low number of caudal vertebrae (<24), absent in oviraptorids
and segnosaurs, was included as character 139, state 2.
4. Their unreduced (>40% of centrum length) distal caudal prezygopophyses,
absent in segnosaurs, Microvenator and oviraptorids, were included as
character 151, state 1.
5. The reduced ischiopubic ratio was not included yet.
So although three valid characters uniting Caudipteryx and Nomingia were
included, they weren't enough to change the topology to reflect that
> Did you include the characters in Makovicky's PhD thesis that found
> Ornitholestes close to the dromaeosaurids or the characters that HP
> suggested for the possibility of O. being close to oviraptorosaurs?
I included three of the four characters Makovicky listed in support of an
Ornitholestes + Dromaeosauridae clade. Haven't examined the other one yet.
I couldn't find the characters you refer to that link Ornitholestes and
oviraptorosaurs, though Jaime seems to not support this relationship
anymore. Where were they listed?
> > I had to exclude Therizinosaurus and Borogovia due to the fact no
> >or axial remains are known.
> You will of course be including them in the rest of your analysis, right?
I'll try, but there is little material for either.
> Will you be including Sapeornis, Epidendrosaurus, Cryptovolans,
> Changchengornis, Jibeinia, Erliansaurus, Neimongosaurus, Nothronychus,
> Eshanosaurus, and Protopteryx in your analysis at all? And have you
> considered coding Oviraptoridae as separate OTUs?
Epidendrosaurus is coded with Scansoriopteryx as one OTU. Eshanosaurus is
not included because it's only known from a partial mandible, that may be
sauropodomorph. The others are already included, but were not analyzed in
my preliminary runs because of the lack of cranial and/or axial information.
Sapeornis is coded for 6 characters, Cryptovolans for 8, Changchengornis for
36, Jibeinia for 20, Erliansaurus for 6, Neimongosaurus for 40, Nothronychus
for 23, and Protopteryx for 26.
Adding Changchengornis, Neimongosaurus, Nothronychus and Protopteryx into
the large analysis (AMNH taxa + 15 others) resulted in 3953 MPT's of 630
steps each. Neimongosaurus and Nothronychus were enigmosaurs, but
Enigmosauria was a polytomy. The rest of the tree was slightly different
from the one I gave yesterday-
| |--IGM 100/1015
So Changchengornis ended up in the right place, and Protopteryx not far off.
Attempts to include the other taxa (even singly) resulted in a huge
Also, I realized I included Coelurus in my "AMNH team only" tree yesterday,
and forgot Unenlagia, both of which are incorrect. The real AMNH only tree
is different in a few areas.
`--+--Dromaeosauridae polytomy incl. Unenlagia
| | `--Ornithomimidae
| | `--+--Erlikosaurus
| | `--Segnosaurus
| `--+--+--Caudipteryx zoui
| | `--Confuciusornis
`--+--Troodontidae (same topology)
I'm surprised Unenlagia went anywhere, as it's only coded for nine
characters. Interesting thing happening with the ornithomimosaurs and
alvarezsaurids though. Almost none of Sereno's arctometatarsalian
alvarezsaurid characters are included yet, as they are mostly from the