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

RE: Me vs. Makovicky et al.- comparison and consensus





> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On Behalf Of
> Jaime A. Headden
> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 6:21 AM
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Cc: mickey_mortimer111@msn.com
> Subject: Re: Me vs. Makovicky et al.- comparison and consensus
>
>
> Mickey Mortimer (mickey_mortimer111@msn.com) wrote:
>
> <Is Jaime right?  Is my tree more improbable than either the TWG's numerous
> permutations, Rauhut (2003) or Holtz (2000, 2004)?  Well, it's only fair to
> compare the taxa included in both analyses when comparing their results.>
>
>   Let's actually look at the improbabilities by examining the phylogenies
> themselves:
>
> Holtz's 2004 Dinosauria II topology, starting at Avetheropoda:
>
> --+--Bahariasaurus
>   |--Gasosaurus
>   |--Ozraptor
>   |--Quilmesaurus
>   |--Valdoraptor
>   |--+--Monolophosaurus
>   |  |--Cryolophosaurus
>   |  |--+--Fukuiraptor
>   |  |  `--Siamotyrannus
>   |  |--+--Sinraptor dongi
>   |  |  |--Sinraptor hepingensis
>   |  |  |--Yangchuanosaurus shangyuanensis
>   |  |  `--Yangchuanosaurus magnus
>   |  |--Lourinhanosaurus
>   |  |--+--Allosaurus
>   |  |  |  |--A. fragilis
>   |  |  |  |--A. sp.
>   |  |  |  `--A? tendagurensis
>   |  |  |--Saurophaganax
>   |  |  `--unnamed allosauroid
>   |  `--+--unnamed carcharodontosaurid A
>   |     |--unnamed carcharodontosaurid B
>   |     |--Neovenator
>   |     `--+--Acrocanthosaurus
>   |        `--+--Giganotosaurus
>   |           `--Carcharodontosaurus
>   `--+--Deltadromeus
>      |--Kakuru
>      |--Marshosaurus
>      |--Richardoestesia gilmorei
>      |--Richardoestesia isosceles
>      |--Richardoestesia sp.
>      |--Shanyangosaurus
>      |--Tugulusaurus
>      |--+--Aristosuchus
>      |  |--Mirischia
>      |  |--Compsognathus
>      |  `--Sinosauropteryx
>      `--+--Nedcolbertia
>         |--Scipionyx
>         `--+--+--Proceratosaurus
>            |  |--Ornitholestes
>            |  `--Nqwebasaurus
>            `--+--Tyrannosauroidea
>               `--+--Coelurus
>                  `--+--Ornithomimosauria
>                     |--(?*Archaeornithoides)
>                     `--+--+--Therizinosauroidea
>                        |  `--Oviraptorosauria
>                        `--+--Alvarezsauridae
>                           `--+--+--Troodontidae
>                              |  `--Dromaeosauridae
>                              `--+--Protarchaeopteryx
>                                 `--Avialae
>
>   Compared to Holtz's 2000 analysis and 2001 Ostrom Symposium update, this is
> MUCH nicer, including a consistent Deinonychosauria.

WHOA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hold on thar! A LOT of the taxa you mentioned 
(Bahariasaurus, Ozraptor, Quilmesaurus [almost certainly a
ceratosaur, but included too late for Tykoski & Rowe to put it in the text], 
Valdoraptor, and so on...) were by no means included in
the analytical potion of the analysis, and therefore do not belong on the 
cladogram.

Be careful to distinguish between the ANALYSIS and the table!

>   *Deltadromeus* is one of those "shifty" types, never stays in one place for
> long -- don't date him, girls, he's trouble.

Yeah, a ceratosaur anyway... Tricky, that one!