[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Dakotaraptor - seriously??
Misidentifying a piece of turtle plastron would hardly be the only
questionable aspect of the description of Dakotaraptor. The strict
consensus tree is completely resolved, despite being based on a data
set which found several polytomies in Deinonychosauria. I am not alone
in being skeptical that this is a strict consensus tree. Moreover, the
large number of MPTs they report--1237--is much larger than the number
of MPTs for the data set their analysis is based on (30), whereas,
curiously, the tree length is 1232--only slightly smaller than the
number of MPTs DePalma et al. report. In other words, I am skeptical
that DePalma et al. reported their phylogenetic results correctly.
Perhaps they reported tree length as the number of MPTs, they reported
only one MPT rather than the strict consensus, or both.
That said, if the type tibia is indeed from a dromaeosaurid, it would
be the longest dromaeosaurid tibia known. With such a long tibia,
either it's a five-meter dromaeosaurid with Deinonychus-like
proportions, or a seven-meter long dromaeosaurid with Utahraptor-like
proportions. Even if the description is flawed, there's still a
gigantic dromaeosaurid in the Hell Creek Formation.
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Hammer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I'm a little shocked that the original researchers would somehow miss this
> being a chimera. How solid is the foundation of this new paper?