Re: I will be ostracized because of this

[Jack <jconrad@lib.drury.edu>]

On Wed, 25 Feb 1998, T. Mike Keesey wrote:

> It's hard to be critical of someone who endorses my site so strongly,
> but.... 

I appreciate all criticisms.  One learns much more quickly if someone
helps point out one's errors.  

> This is a little confusing right off the bat. Why isn't _Therizinosaurus_
> in Therizinosauridae, and what do you mean by "primitive segnosaurs"?

That was a mistake on my part.  I should have reverted Therizinosauridae
back to Segnosauridae when I removed _Therizinosaurus_.  By "primitive
segnosaurs" I am referring to basal phytodinosaurs that do not fit in the
Sauropodomorpha or Ornithischia.  Since they probably would have had the
"prosauropod/'fabrosaurid'" foot, a shoulder girdle similar to _Theriz._
and other miscellaneous and varied details often characteristic of
"segnosaurs," I referred to them thusly for simplicity (which backfired).  

> This seems like more of an argument for inclusion of herrerasaurids in
> Theropoda to me.

Not if it was an independent development of the character.  

> "Basal phytodinosaurs" might be a better term than "segnosaurs".

Indeed.

> > _Eoraptor_, but primitive to _Staurikosaurus_ based on comparisons of the
> > pelvis and skull in these two forms as compared with the relatively
> > derived _Segnosaurus_ and "prosauropods".  
> Now I'm really confused. This doesn't look like your cladogram at all, and
> I still don't know what you mean by "segnosaurs".

>>|--_Eoraptor_
>>|--+--Herrerasauridae (or "herrerasaurids")
>>|  +--Phytodinosauria
>>|     |=="primitive segnosaurs" [BASAL PHYTODINOSAURS]

        etc.

What I was attempting to illustrate here (perhaps illustrated poorly) is
that phytodinosaurs branched off at a more derived state than _Eoraptor_,
with a few of characters similar to herrerasaurids. 


> > ALSO CHECK OUT T. MIKE KEESEY'S WEBSITE FOR THE CURRENTLY ACCEPTED  
> > CLADISTIC ANALYSIS OF ALL DINOSAURS:
> > <http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~tkeese1/dinosaur>
> 
> Thanks! It's accepted by me, anyway... more or less.

Plus, it's pretty similar to what is found in the most current literature.
Great site (like the remodeling you've done).  

Jack Conrad