[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Applying Sereno's definitions to Neotetanurae: Part 2
Mickey Mortimer (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
<Clades found in at least three published phylogenies based on separate
matrices which currently lack an active name, with suggested names included. I
didn't include phylogenies where a compositionally identical clade is named
with the opposite kind of definition (node vs. stem). So for instance, if we
have (Passer (Sinraptor, Allosaurus), a separate name for the Sinraptor +
Allosaurus clade isn't needed because Allosauroidea (as defined Allosaurus <-
Passer) covers it (though it's technically not the same clade). But if we
have (Passer (Monolophosaurus (Sinraptor, Allosaurus))), the Sinraptor +
Allosaurus clade lacks an applicable name.>
<(Allosauroidea sensu Padian et al.)
Sinraptor dongi + Allosaurus fragilis
Azuma and Currie, 2000; Currie and Carpenter, 2000; Holtz, 2000; Rauhut, 2003;
Holtz et al., 2004; Novas et al., 2005
Allosaurus fragilis + Carcharodontosaurus saharicus, - Sinraptor dongi
Holtz, 2000; Holtz et al., 2004; Novas et al., 2005
Sinraptor dongi + Carcharodontosaurus saharicus, - Allosaurus fragilis
Allain, 2002; Coria and Currie, 2002; Rauhut, 2003
Carcharodontosaurus saharicus + Giganotosaurus carolini
Holtz, 2000; Holtz et al., 2004; Novas et al., 2005>
We might have to consider only that the conditional stems, those stems with a
second inclusive specifier, or a "stem-modified node", are those names which
have been suggested for Sinraptoridae (pointed at *Sinraptor*), Allosauridae
(pointing at *Allosaurus*) and Carcharodontosauridae (pointing at
*Carcharodontosaurus*), should be named. Other grouping might be superfluous.
Especially if we start using names that suggest "family" structure, with
possible radical reorganization, topologies like
(Sin ((Acro + Carch) + Allo))
(Allo (Acro (Carch + Sin)))
(Sin (Acro (Carch + Allo)))
(Carch (Sin (Acro + Allo)))
and so forth. Inclusion or resolution of possible allosaurs, new carch taxa,
a systematized use of *Tyrannotitan*, the new carch from Patagonia (if indeed
that is what it is), and Brusatte and Sereno's new skull from Morocco and what
effect this will have on the name *Carcharodontosaurus*. Some have suggested
using the 1996 Moroccan skull as a neotype for the rather undiagnostic type
tooth (if it indeed IS undiagnostic), and some may conserve the tooth and
simply rename the skull. Fixing the names on a single tooth with other fossils
shaowing the type features are variable may make its use as a specifier highly
Tarbosaurus bataar + Tyrannosaurus rex
Holtz, 2001; Currie et al., 2003; Holtz, 2004; Xu et al., 2004; Carr et al.,
Remember the suggestion on using family-like names. We can also simply call
this *Tyrannosaurus* and dispose of using *Tarbosaurus*.
<Compsognathus longipes + Passer domesticus
Allain, 2002; Gishlick, 2002; Rauhut, 2003; some TWG; Holtz et al., 2004;
Senter et al., 2004; Rauhut and Xu, 2005; mine>
For Pete's sake, someone name this clade!
Compsognathus longipes + Sinosauropteryx prima
Rauhut, 2003; Holtz et al., 2004; Hwang et al., 2004>
Better resolution should wait until the new description of the type and
possible second specimen of the type species, and of the skull "Borsti" are
available to us. That said, "Compsognathidae" itself may be paraphyletic as a
grade of small conservative coelurosaurs, and we should rather simply use the
smallest assured group of "compsognaths" as the specifiers of a
"Compsognathidae". Hmm, and for that matter, someone can try suggesting a
consideration of the odd *Nqwebasaurus*, and so forth, those odd "coelurids". A
conditional Coeluridae wouldn't be too bad.
<(Maniraptora sensu Holtz, 1994)
Ornitholestes hermanni + Passer domesticus
Holtz, 1992; Holtz, 1994; Holtz, 2000; Rauhut, 2003; Gishlick, 2002; Senter et
al., 2004; Holtz et al., 2004; mine>
And I would rather this not be called Maniraptora. "Carporaptores" sounds ...
okay ... might show that the development of the advanced folding wrist starts
about there (or with *Coelurus*).
Ornithomimus velox + Troodon formosus, - Dromaeosaurus albertensis
Holtz, 1992; Holtz, 1994; Makovicky, 1995; Holtz, 2000 and 2001>
The name is available, but nice suggested topology ... excluding alvarezsaurs
might also be considerably wise.
Garudimimus brevipes + Ornithomimus velox
Perez-Moreno et al., 1994; some TWG; Kobayashi and Lu, 2003; Holtz et al.,
This has also been Ornithomimidae, as well. Perhaps we can use
Ornithomimoidea as Sereno intended, and modify it as a conditional name. Then
name the Garudi + Ornitho clade something else ... "Edenturhynchia"?
<(Maniraptora sensu Sereno, 1998)
Oviraptor philoceratops + Passer domesticus
Sereno, 1999; Holtz, 2000 and 2001; Norell et al., 2000; all TWG; Gishlick,
2002; Xu and Zhang, 2005>
I actually have the perfect name for this, but do not want to share in
Therizinosaurus cheloniformis + Oviraptor philoceratops, - Troodon formosus
Makovicky, 1995; Xu et al., 1999; Norell et al., 2001>
Sereno's suggestion of Oviraptoriformes can be modified to fit this. As well
as modifying the definition to ensure exclusion of birds, should they appear
closer to oviraptorosaurs than are therizinosauroids.
<Caudipteryx zoui + Oviraptor philoceratops
some TWG; Maryanska et al., 2002; Lu, 2004; Osmolska et al., 2004; Senter et
al., 2004; Xu and Zhang, 2005;>
I have no problem with this, if *Protarchaeopteryx* does end up as a basal
taxon, or there is a monophyletic Caudipteridae. A node based system at the
base of Oviraptorosauria, however, requires agreeing with a stem-based
Oviraptorosauria, which I would accept. A name based on the ultra-short tails
may be interesting.
<Microvenator celer + Rinchenia mongoliensis, - Ingenia yanshini
Maryanska et al., 2002; Lu, 2004; Xu and Zhang, 2005>
This position for Micro is likely artificial, based on misunderstood
interpretations of the jaw bone, and lack of information on the skeleton and
skull of *Rinchenia*. Of course, I recover a different arrangement, and
*Microvenator* may not be a oviraptorid as implied, due to features (admittedly
plesiomorphic) of the pelvis and shoulder. Defining such an odd arrangement of
taxa, especially with a suspect arrangement of oviraptorosaurs based on
bird-based analyses subject to the issue of excluding key maniraptorans and
birds, makes this topology difficult to accept.
Sinornithoides youngi + Byronosaurus jaffei + Troodon formosus
Norell et al., 2000; all TWG; Holtz et al., 2004; Zu and Zhang, 2005; mine>
Why not Troodontidae? We can name more basal "troodontids" as "troodontoids",
especially since these would seem to be the ultra-avian *Sinovenator* + *Mei* +
Zos Canyon troodont + Ukhaa troodont clade, might name that something relating
to that avianess, in parallel to Senter's avoidance of family-like names.
<Saurornithoides mongoliensis + Troodon formosus
Norell et al., 2000; all TWG; Senter et al., 2004; Xu and Zhang, 2005; mine>
*Saurornithoides* seems fine, once we stop using the tooth as a specifier.
<(Dromaeosauridae sensu Padian et al.)
Dromaeosaurus albertensis + Velociraptor mongoliensis
Xu et al., 1999; all TWG; Senter et al., 2004; Holtz et al., 2004; Xu and
Zhang, 2005; mine>
This might actually correspond to the classic Velociraptorinae plus
*Dromaeosaurus*, since it seems to just be a robust snouted descendant of other
Campanian velociraptorines. *Atrociraptor* seems to clinch it in having a
bulldog, *Dromaeosaurus*-like snout with *Velociraptor*-like dentition. I would
suggest just tanking the Dromaeo vs Veloci dichotomy altogether.
Passer domesticus <- Deinonychus antirrhopus
Forster et al., 1998; Ji et al., 1998; Holtz, 2000; some TWG; Chiappe, 2001
and 2002; Maryanska et al., 2002; Zhang et al., 2002; Rauhut, 2003; Osmolska et
al., 2004; mine>
Why not adopt the apomorphy-based defintion? And why *Deinonychus* but not
*Dromaeosaurus*, type of Dromaeosauridae?
short tail as in Passer domesticus
Chatterjee, 1999; Zhou and Zhang, 2002; Zhou and Zhang, 2005
* This only includes topologies where another name (Ornithurae, Pygostylia,
Ornithothoraces, etc.) wasn't applicable.>
Hmmm ... *Passer domesticus* + *Iberomesornis romerali*?
That seems one of the first "birds" to have a really and truly "avian" tail.
Jaime A. Headden
"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.