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

RE: Hone et al. (2005) on dinosaur body size evolution

David Marjanovic wrote-

fig. 1: *Patagonykus* is shown as Kimmeridgian or earlier. IIRC it's as
young as *Alvarezsaurus*.

Nope. Patagonykus is Coniacian, while Alvarezsaurus is Santonian.

- The size of *Dilophosaurus* is not known. The only known specimen is
subadult. Thus *D.* was most probably not slightly smaller but quite a bit
bigger than *Liliensternus*.

Except that the Liliensternus liliensterni syntypes are also subadults.

- Why compare *Gasosaurus* and *Marshosaurus*? Maybe both were listed as
"megalosaurids" (which used to be a horrible wastebasket!) in the source
the supertree used?

I'm betting this was based on Paul's (1988) phylogeny, where they were "eustreptospondylines" successively closer to sinraptorids + avetheropods.

- Comparing *Ligabueino*, a noasaurid, to *Abelisaurus* is suboptimal.
Abelisaurids the age of *Ligabueino* (and many times its size) are known.
Besides, isn't *L.* juvenile or something? (I can't look that up at the

Yup, it's juvenile.

fig. 4:
What is the circle in the Triassic theropod(?) polygon? Circles are
supposed to be reserved for eumaniraptorans...


The study of the evolution of body size is in its infancy.

Especially considering the large number of taxa known from young individuals or those of unknown maturity.

Mickey Mortimer