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

Re: Is Kayentavenator a tetanurine or a juvenile kayentakatae?



Seems to me that both the ethical problem of the use of Megapnosaurus
(as explained in Tykoski's thesis) and the discovery, or at least lack
of support, for the hypothesis of a sister-group relationship between
Megapnosaurus rhodesiensis and "Syntarsus" kayentakatae is a great
opportunity to follow Taylor's lead and erect a new genus for the
latter. Or, and here I don't know, but if Kayentavenator elysiae ends
up being valid and synonymous with "Syntarsus" kayentakatae, then we
would have already a genus for the latter. Would the combination thus
be Kayentavenator kayentakatae?

It's noticeable that to my knowledge, this is the second supposed
tetanurine, on the basis of small data sets, to be alternatively
proposed as a non- tetanurine nor averostran, after Zupaysaurus
(Ezcurra and Novas 2006 matrix was much more complete than Arcucci and
Coria's 2003). Congratulations Michael for the discovery; I think, as
others, you should publish it, or at least be properly cited for the
ideas, if you permit others to check your matrix for the sake of
repeatability.

2010/10/1 Michael Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>:
>
> Jocelyn Falconnet wrote-
>
>> Also, Mike, I see you used quotation marks for *Megapnosaurus* in
>> *Megapnosaurus kayentakatae*. Is there now a consensus regarding
>> coelophysoid interrelationships, or is the coelophysoid taxonomy as
>> debated as ever, notably regarding the *C. bauri* / *M. rhodesiensis*
>> problem ?
>
> I base that on Tykoski's (2005) thesis, which finds kayentakatae is outside 
> Megapnosaurus+Coelophysis and closer to Segisaurus.  This agrees with my 
> saurischian supermatrix including all the data from most recent large basal 
> theropod analyses (including Tykoski's).  It's not based on many characters 
> (anterodorsal margin of acromion has smooth, continuous, high-angle 
> transition to scapular blade; pubes rectangular in distal view), but 
> basically all the characters joining it to Megapnosaurus were based on 
> misinterpretations of Coelophysis and such.  I suppose you could call it 
> Segisaurus kayentakatae under this phylogeny, though no one has to my 
> knowledge.  Ezcurra and Novas (2006) found the same topology, except 
> kayentakatae was closer to Coelophysis and Megapnosaurus than to Segisaurus.
>
> Mickey Mortimer
>
>