[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Tyrannosauroids and dromaeosaurs
> Yeah. I just added Anserimimus (codable for 24 characters), and it
> the topology a bit. Oddly, it's most parsimoniously next to
> I changed the "double-headed quadrate" character into two characters-
> "quadrate contacts squamosal and prootic or opisthotic" and "proximal
> of quadrate widely separated". Did you know troodontids have the former?
> I wonder why Maryanska and Osmolska (1997) made
> such a big deal about caenagnathoids having it.
Because they have the latter... don't they?
> I deleted the "quadrate not sutured to quadratojugal" character [...]
> I added a "dentary anterior to emf short compared to mandibular height
> emf" character, which combines Microvenator and oviraptorids in Makovicky
> and Sues (1998).
> Well, now I get-
> |--Carnosauria (inc. Sinraptor, Allosaurus, Monolophosaurus)
> | |--Dryptosaurus
> | |--Iliosuchus
> | |--Fukuiraptor
> | |--Stokesosaurus
> | `--+--Tyrannosauridae
> | `--+--"Chilantaisaurus" maortuensis
> | `--+--Eotyrannus
> | `--Aviatyrannis
> `--other coelurosaurs
> Anserimimus fixed it. :-)
> Nah, segnosaurs are just drawn more basally quite often. Sometimes as
> arctometatarsalians. Now Enigmosauria exists again, though Beipiaosaurus
> and Erliansaurus form a clade in the basal Coelurosauria and
> is directly basal to avepectorans. Stupid segnosaurs, it's so hard
> them together. Damn the ghost of Ken Kinman! ;-)
:-D Cool. Well, the pelvis etc. will fix them, I predict.
> As for why avimimids are more derived than Caudipteryx-
> - [...].
Quite a lot, 7 or 8 characters... impressive. Would've thought one or two.
> And Avimimidae is supported by-
> - premaxillae fused anteriorly.
> - paraquadrate foramen absent.
> > > `--+--Protarchaeopteryx
> > [...]
> Now it's a basal enigmosaur, sister to Segnosauria + Oviraptorosauria.
> [...] now everything's back to normal in that area,
> except that troodontids are avialan.
> I hope this post shows the importance
> of including all relevent taxa in an analysis.
What does the strict consensus look like? :-) Maybe *Anserimimus* just
reduced the polytomies in some parts of the tree, created new ones in
others, and thus changed the 90 % majrule tree without changing the strict
consensus all that much.
> > Why not *M. gui* and *C.* as sistergroups?
> - sternum length (anterior median tip to posterior median tip) width
> (narrowest width across costal margins, or greatest width for those taxa
> without costal margins) ratio > 170.
> - [...].
Cool. But in that character, you're measuring two completely different
widths depending on whether there are costal margins or not.
> New 90% majority rule-
*Archaeornithomimus* makes *Unenlagia* jump... this sounds like the strict
consensus is pretty unresolved. Is it? :-)
> > > `--+--+--Noguerornis
> > > | |--Boluochia
> > > | |--Neuquenornis
> > > | |--Gobipteryx
> > > | `--Enantiornis
> > How did you get the position of *Boluochia* so well resolved?
> I coded it. :-) For 16 characters. Is a polytomy with four other taxa
> really well resolved?
Oh yes, considering how it came out in my analyses: in the basal polytomy of
Enantiornithes. OK, the strict consensus with all taxa didn't even have
Enantiornithes, but with dust like *Alexornis* in the matrix that's not
> > > |--+--Ambiortus
> > > | `--Apsaravis
> > How come?
> - [...].
> My analysis doesn't like having Patagopteryx as the most basal
In mine, it jumped "above" the yanornithids after reweighting, and otherwise
it stayed the 2nd most basal euornithine after *Vorona*.
> Or Songlingornis as a yanornithid.
I always got it somewhere higher up, with *Ambiortus*, *Apsaravis* and
> Or yanornithids being monophyletic at all.
Never got them that way -- but I didn't include the sternal characters that
support their monophyly, unlike you!
> Eh, much like the Incisivosaurus vs. Caudipteryx situation, I think people
> see a trend they like and arrange taxa on that (rather Olshevskian). They
> think everything has to be developing towards ornithomimids. So they
> a taxon's placement based on tooth reduction and manual digit I
Very keen observation!!! :-)