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

Re: Nqwebasaurus, maybe NOT an African ornithomimosaur

Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> wrote:

> Very cool to see this described in more depth.  Unfortunately, I'd recommend 
> taking the phylogenetic position with a HUGE grain of salt.
> Previous Choiniere analyses have been extremely uncoded, leaving huge swaths 
> of data unknown when they could have been coded as
> one state or another.  In addition, at least the Haplocheirus analysis wasn't 
> optimized in TNT right, as Choiniere et al. reported far too few
> trees which are longer and different than the 1,000,000+ most parsimonious 
> trees their data actually generate.  While the Nqwebasaurus
> matrix is not available yet, only 176 trees are reported, and only 84 when 
> it's constrained to be an alvarezsaur.  This suggests they made
> the same mistake while running TNT as last time.

I'm going to stick my neck out here, and talk about the anatomy and
behavior of _Nqwebasaurus_, rather than its name.     ;-)

Irrespective of whether _Nqwebasaurus_ is an ornithomimosaur or not,
the material indicates that this coelurosaur was herbivorous.  If
so... what did it use its hands for?  The forelimb is short by
coelurosaurian standards (just over 40% the length of the hindlimb),
so presumably not very useful for grasping or hooking branches, as
inferred for (more derived) ornithomimosaurs.