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

Re: Juravenator



Jay wrote-

Interesting how Gohlich & Chiappe recovered a monophyletic clade, which includes Carnosauria (inc
Allosauroidea) + Tyrannosauroidea in their supplementary information cladogram.
And in the Nature paper, they published a tree with Allosauroidea + Tyrannosauroidea + remaining
coelurosaurs in a trichotomy. Both cladograms are labled Strict consensus trees.


So I pose this: Are we seeing the (slow) return of tyrannosaurs to Carnosauria???

No. Among the more obvious reasons-
- Only two tyrannosauroids were included, both very derived (Gorgosaurus, Tyrannosaurus). If more basal taxa were included (Guanlong, Dilong, Bagaraatan, Eotyrannus, etc.), they would probably be dragged into Coelurosauria.
- The analysis is basically the Theropod Working Group matrix with ~27 less taxa and ~30 less characters. So its results are more poorly supported than most TWG runs (e.g. Makovicky et al., 2005; Kirkland et al., 2005). The latter all find coelurosaurian tyrannosaurids.
- Only two carnosaurs were included (Sinraptor, Allosaurus), and no megalosauroids (which are important, as the outgroup of neotetanurines/avetheropods). The other TWG matrices suffer from this same problem, which is why they're not the best analyses for this particular question.


Mickey Mortimer