RE: Maniraptoran Tyrannosaurs

["Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>]

Nicholas Gardner (n_gardner637@hotmail.com) wrote:

<
--Enigmosauria
  |--Oviraptorosauria
  |  |?-Caudipteryx
  |  |?-Microvenator
  |  `--+--Avimimidae
  |     |  |--Avimimus
  |     |  |--Kakuru
  |     |  `?-Timimus
  |     `--Oviraptoroidea
  |        |--Caenagnathidae (*)
  |        `--Oviraptoridae
  |           |--Ingeniinae
  |           |  |--Conchoraptor
  |           |  |--Ingenia
  |           |  `--Khaan
  |           `--Oviraptorinae
  |              |--Citipati
  |              |--Oviraptor
  |              `--Rinchenia
  `--Therizinosauria
     |?-Beipiaosaurus
     `--Therizinosauroidea
        |--Alxasaurus
        `--Therizinosauridae
           |?-"Nanshiungosaurus" bohlini
           |?-Nanshiungosaurus
           |?-Nothronychus
           `--+--Segnosaurinae
              |  |--Enigmosaurus
              |  |--Erlikosaurus
              |  `--Segnosaurus
              `--Therizinosaurinae
                 |?-"Chilantaisaurus" zheziangensis
                 `--Therizinosaurus>

  1) "Enigmosauria" is unpublished, and as such should either a) not be used or 
b) or put in
quotes.
  2) I have no idea what puts *Timimus* in Oviraptorosauria, but I cannot see 
any synapomorphies
and Mickey confesses his are ambiguous and the taxon should be treated as lower 
level than
Oviraptorosauria or the ovi+segno clade.
  3) Ingeniinae historically includes *Ingenia* to the exclusion of 
*Conchoraptor* or *Oviraptor*,
and as a monotypic taxon, should not even be used. If not, then *Conchoraptor* 
is still closer to
*Oviraptor* (as an oviraptorine, sensu Barsbold, 1986).
  4) "Rinchenia" is a nomen nudum for *Oviraptor mongoliensis* and in the most 
recent treatment of
systematics by Barsbold (in the description of *Khaan* and *Citipati*) was not 
used. It is the
opinion of this worker that the name be reserved and not used, as both species 
of *Oviraptor* are
still closer to one another than even *Citipati*. The previous use of the name 
was to separate GI
100/42, the cassowary oviraptorid, from *O. mongoliensis*, but as the type of 
*Oviraptor
philoceratops* is of more similar morphology to *O. mongoliensis* than 
*Citipati osmolskae* or GI
100/42 [a possible species of *Citipati*] then the name is unneccesary.
  5) The term "Therizinosauria" is unneccesary in the light of a previous term, 
Segnosauria
Barsbold and Perle, 1981, as a most-inclusive grouping of what have been 
traditionally referred to
as segnosaurs ever since. Instead of coining a new term, it is best to utilize 
a new term (no, I
know Nicholas did not coin Therizinosauria).
  6) "Nothronychus", until published, should not be used. One can say "Cedar 
Mountain
therizinosaur", but the name should not be available.
  7) Similar the Ingeniinae statement, there is no means of distinguishing most 
of the
therizinosaurids among one another based on the lack of comparative anatomy for 
all or even most
of them. Thus, it is perhaps "better" that *Nanshiungosaurus*, 
*Therizinosaurus*, *Segnosaurus*,
*Erlikosaurus*, *Enigmosaurus* be included in one group to which no singular 
diagnosis can be
offered. This grouping is suspect until published. They are more advanced than 
*Alxasaurus*, but
until then no further comparison can be made.


=====
Jaime A. Headden

  Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhr-gen-ti-na
  Where the Wind Comes Sweeping Down the Pampas!!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/