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

Re: New paper on pre-Archaeopteryx coelurosaurian dinosaurs



Not sure what you're doing, but I thought archaeopteryx was an evolutionary dead end, and birds split from the other therapods very early. Of course, an older version has maniraptors their ancestors.

Yours,
Villandra Thorsdottir
Austin, Texas

----- Original Message ----- From: <vultur-10@neo.tamu.edu>
To: "dinosaur" <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: New paper on pre-Archaeopteryx coelurosaurian dinosaurs


I thought Gigantoraptor was ~2 tonnes, much smaller than e.g. Tyrannosaurus or Spinosaurus. Has its size been revised upwards?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Williams" <tijawi@gmail.com>
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 7:24:05 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Re: New paper on pre-Archaeopteryx coelurosaurian dinosaurs

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 5:40 AM, Jason Brougham <jaseb@amnh.org> wrote:

I hope that no one goes overboard about the new Xu et al. paper. As the authors state themselves: "such a phylogenetic hypothesis would have significant implications for the reconstruction of the theropod - bird transition but it has yet to be tested by quantitative analysis."


IF - and this is still a big IF - the topology showing
Oviraptorosauria inside Aves is supported, then it means that the
largest known theropod (_Gigantoraptor_) is a bird.

(I know that being a member of Aves does not necessarily mean that
something is a 'bird', the latter being a vernacular term.  But
still... _Archaeopteryx_ is almost always said to be a 'bird', and if
oviraptorosaurs are closer to modern birds than ol' Archie is, well
then there's no reason why they shouldn't also be called birds.
Sternberg was right after all when he thought _Caenagnathus_ was a
bird!)

But I'm getting way ahead of myself.  This phylogenetic hypothesis has
yet to be tested.


Cheers

Tim