RE: harpymimids

["T. Mike Keesey" <tmk@dinosauricon.com>]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. wrote:

> The _Harpymimus_ type (which includes more material than illustrated in the
> original and subsequent papers) is definitely an ornithomimosaur.  It isn't
> so much an oddball as it is primitive: where it differs from other
> ornithomimisaurs (save _Pelecanimimus_), it does so by showing a primitive
> rather than derived state.

Is there debate as to whether it's more or less basal than
_Pelecanimimus_? IIRC, the recent "Supertree" paper had it more basal,
although prior to that I only recall seeing it placed just above
_Pelecanimimus_.

On a related issue, has anyone (besides Sereno) defined _Ornithomimidae_?

_____________________________________________________________________________
T. MICHAEL KEESEY
 The Dinosauricon        <http://dinosauricon.com>
  BloodySteak             <http://www.bloodysteak.com>
   personal                <keesey@bigfoot.com> --> <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
    Dinosauricon-related    <dinosaur@dinosauricon.com>
     AOL Instant Messenger   <Ric Blayze>
      ICQ                     <77314901>
       Yahoo! Messenger        <Mighty Odinn>