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

Re: 19 Questions About Mickey's Analysis For Mickey



Nicholas Gardner wrote many questions.

Well, now I've changed some codings and added another character, so the
results are different.  Also, I wouldn't want to reveal all the data
supporting the nodes you asked about, as that would be a significant
fraction of my data, and I don't actually support much of my tree yet.
Here's the result of my newest runs, completely unconstrained.  I actually
like them much better than the constrained results, despite carnosaurian
tyrannosauroids and polyphyletic segnosaurs.

90% majority rule consensus of 100189 most parsimonious trees.

|--Monolophosaurus
|--+--Sinraptor
|  `--+--Allosaurus
|     `--+--+--Dryptosaurus
|        |  `--Bagaraatan
|        `--+--Tyrannosauridae
|           `--+--Eotyrannus
|              `--"Chilantaisaurus" maortuensis
`--+--Proceratosaurus
   `--+--Ornitholestes
      `--+--Sinosauropteryx
         |--Scipionyx
         `--+--Compsognathus
            `--+--+--+--Avimimus
               |  |  `--+--Patagonykus
               |  |     `--+--Alvarezsaurus
               |  |        `--Mononykinae
               |  `--+--"Grusimimus"
               |     `--+--Archaeornithomimus
               |        `--+--Pelecanimimus
               |           `--+--Harpymimus
               |              `--+--Deinocheirus
               |                 `--+--Garudimimus
               |                    `--Ornithomimidae
               |--Therizinosaurus
               |--+--Segnosaurus
               |  `--Erlikosaurus
               |--Richardoestesia
               `--+--Coelurus
                  |--+--+--Caudipteryx zoui
                  |  |  `--Caudipteryx sp. nov.
                  |  `--+--Nanshiungosaurus
                  |     `--+--Protarchaeopteryx
                  |        `--+--+--Nothronychus
                  |           |  |--Neimongosaurus
                  |           |  `--+--Alxasaurus
                  |           |     `--+--Erliansaurus
                  |           |        `--Beipiaosaurus
                  |           |--Incisivosaurus
                  |           `--+--Caenagnathidae
                  |              `--+--Nomingia
                  |                 `--+--Microvenator
                  |                    `--Oviraptoridae
                  `--+--Yixianosaurus
                     |--+--Archaeornithoides
                     |  |--Pyroraptor
                     |  `--+--Sinovenator
                     |     |--IGM 100/44
                     |     `--+--Itemirus
                     |        `--+--Byronosaurus
                     |           `--+--Sinornithoides
                     |              `--+--Saurornithoides junior
                     |                 `--+--Saurornithoides mongoliensis
                     |                    `--Troodon
                     |--+--Microraptor zhaoianus
                     |  `--+--Utahraptor
                     |     `--+--+--Achillobatar
                     |        |  `--Variraptor
                     |        `--+--Saurornitholestes
                     |           |--IGM 100/1015
                     |           |--+--Velociraptor
                     |           |  `--+--Deinonychus
                     |           |     `--Dromaeosaurus
                     |           `--+--+--Microraptor gui
                     |              |  `--Cryptovolans
                     |              `--+--Unenlagia
                     |                 `--+--Sinornithosaurus
                     |                    `--+--NGMC 91
                     |                       `--Bambiraptor
                     `--+--Scansoriopterygidae
                        `--+--+--Archaeopteryx
                           |  `--Wellnhoferia
                           `--+--Rahonavis
                              `--+--Yandangornis
                                 `--+--+--Shenzhouraptor
                                    |  `--+--Jixiangornis
                                    |     `--Omnivoropteryx
                                    `--+--Sapeornis
                                       `--+--Changchengornis
                                          `--Pygostylia

Pygostylia

+--Confuciusornis
`--+--"Cathayornis" caudatus
   `--+--Protopteryx
      `--+--+--YPM 1996
         |  |--+--Noguerornis
         |  |  `--Cuspirostrisornis
         |  `--+--Boluochia
         |     `--+--Gobipteryx
         |        `--Enantiornis
         |--+--Jibeinia
         |  `--Longchengornis
         `--+--Catalan nestling
            |--Eocathayornis
            |--Concornis
            |--+--+--Eoalulavis
            |  |  `--Liaoningornis
            |  `--+--Liaoxiornis
            |     `--+--Eoenantiornis
            |        `--+--GMV-2158
            |           `--GMV 2159
            `--+--+--Iberomesornis
               |  `--Sinornis
               `--+--Largirostrornis
                  `--+--Longipteryx
                     `--+--Neuquenornis
                        `--+--Patagopteryx
                           `--+--Yixianornis
                              |--+--Yanornis
                              |  `--Ornithurae
                              `--+--Songlingornis
                                 `--+--Apsaravis
                                    `--Ambiortus

> What supports tyrannosauroids
> as carnosaurs?

Such questions are difficult to answer because although DELTRAN assures the
immediate node under consideration will have characters supporting the
topology, positions are also supported by characters in any number of deeper
nodes.  So, in the case of carnosaurian tyrannosauroids, I would have to
check the Allosaurus + Tyrannosauroidea node and the Carnosauria node.  And
tyrannosauroids may have reversed any synapomorphies of the latter node, so
I would have to check for that too.  It gets even more complicated further
into the tree.  Frankly, spending the time and energy on such questions,
considering the state of my analysis, isn't appealling at the moment, in
addition to the reasons listed above.  Sorry about that.

However, one character diagnoses Carnosauria, and three support the
Allosaurus + Tyrannosauroidea clade.

> What taxa are included in Tyrannosauroidea when it is part
> of the Carnosauria?

As seen above, Bagaraatan, Dryptosaurus, "Chilantaisaurus" maortuensis,
Eotyrannus and Tyrannosauridae.

> 1. What is keeping Monolophosaurus out of the Carnosauria?

Three characters.

> 2. What is supporting the internal topology within the Carnosauria?
> 3. What is uniting this odd union, a non-monotypic Dryptosauridae at last?

"Tyrannosauroidea"- 3 characters
Dryptosauridae- 0 (strange, isn't it?)
Tyrannosauridae + Eotyrannus + "Chilantaisaurus" maortuensis- 3
Eotyrannus + "Chilantaisaurus" maortuensis- 2

> 4.  Did you try constraining for a monophyly of Tyrannosauridae and
> Eotyrannus?

No.

> >                      `--+--+--+--Garudimimus
> >                         |  |  |--Deinocheirus
> >                         |  |  |--Archaeornithomimus
> >                         |  |  `--Ornithomimidae
> >                         |  `--+--Richardoestesia
> >                         |     `--+--Erliansaurus
> >                         |        `--+--Protarchaeopteryx
> >                         |           `--+--+--Alxasaurus
> >                         |              |  `--Nanshiungosaurus
> >                         |              `--+--Neimongosaurus
> >                         |                 |--Nothronychus
> >                         |                 `--+--Beipiaosaurus
> >                         |                    `--+--Erlikosaurus
> >                         |                       `--+--Segnosaurus
> >                         |                          `--Therizinosaurus
>
> 5.  What is uniting this Sereno-esque arrangement?

Doesn't exist anymore in my newest run.

> 6.  What is uniting the monophyly of Harpymimus and Pelecanimimus?

Doesn't exist anymore either.  Instead, four characters place Harpymimus
closer to ornithomimids.

> 7. What supports Itemirus as a troodontid?

Itemirus + more derived troodontids- 1
IGM 100/44 + more derived troodontids- 1
Sinovenator + more derived troodontids- 8

> 8. What is uniting the monophyly of NGMC 91 and Bambiraptor?

One character.

> 9. What is uniting Yixianosaurus with these deinonychosaurs?

Now it's a eumaniraptoran/paravian not necessarily inside Deinonychosauria
due to two characters.

> 10. Why is Byronosaurus falling out with the avialans?

It's a troodontid now, with the immediate node in consideration supported by
five characters.

> 11. Did you try constraining it as a troodontid?

Nope.

> 12. What is uniting the "microraptors"?

Two characters place Cryptovolans and M. gui together now, but M. zhaoianus
isn't with them anymore.

> 13. What is uniting scansoriopterygids with Archaeopteryx?

Doesn't exist anymore, though nine characters place them inside Avialae.

> 14. Did you try constraining for Yixianosaurus as the sistergroup of
> Scansoriopterygidae, just for the sake of it?

Nope.  Doesn't seem improbable though, considering both are always paravians
in my analyses.

> 15. What supports Wellnhofferia as closer to modern birds than
> Archaeopteryx?

Doesn't happen anymore (or usually), but two characters support
Archaeopterygidae now.

> 16. What unites Sapeornis with Omnivoropteryx?

Oddly, two characters place Omnivoropteryx with Jixiangornis now.

> 17. What unites these taxa (omnivoropterygids?) with oviraptorosaurs?

That was a result which has happened somewhat frequently in my analyses,
though not in the newest one.

> 18. What unites oviraptorosaurs with the more derived avialans?

The prior analysis was the only one I've had where this occurs.

> 19. Isn't "Grusimimus" supposedly a type of ornithomimosaur, what's
> supporting it here instead?

Yes, and in my most recent run, it is ornithomimosaurian.  Then again,
Avimimus is the basalmost taxon to their sistergroup.  So "Grusimimus" and
Avimimus still aren't far apart.  Even if I wanted to list support for
nodes, I'd probably have to skip discussions of "Grusimimus" due to its
basis in unpublished material.

> Overall, I found the tree rather interesting. Perhaps in future updates,
you
> could provide supports for the "more interesting" nodes.  It might
stimulate
> some good discussions.

Thanks.  In a way, I'd like to list support, but I also recognize the need
for restraint if I ever want to get this published (and I'm lazy ;-) ).  I'm
just glad the unconstrained analysis with so many poorly coded taxa is
turning out so well.  These characters were originally meant to determine
relationships between fewer, more inclusive OTU's (in my old analysis), so
I'm surprised they are holding up so well.

Mickey Mortimer