Re: (matrilineal dinosaurs, K parrot)

["David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> <In many species, especially predatory ones AFAIK, the females are
considerably larger.>
>
>   I would like to see evidence for this assumption. [...] skeleton [...]

I think it was clear enough that I was referring to "extant avialian
theropods", e. g. various hawks, where this is an observable fact. Anyway,
thanks for your data.

>   Stidham's reply is based on the gross anatomy of the jaw, which locates
the jaw as a loriid
> psittaciform.

Loriid? So we have a nomenclatural problem in addition? Dyke & Mayr write
"the single recent family within the order, the Psittacidae" (which alone
has the 'parrot-like' beak). Now that you say it, Stidham writes "crown
group parrots" and "crown-group parrots".

> Dyke and Mayr dissagree not so much on morphological as on distributional
grounds.

IMHO on a combination of these -- it is too derived for what they (and I)
would expect of a K parrot.

> Stidham has replied on this in length on list.

Ah! I'll have a look.

> <Is there anything new on this subject? Is the oviraptoroid (Sereno for
Caenagnathoidea + its
> stem) character still valid?>
>
>   Oviraptoroidea is not considered a valid taxon. It was named before the
ICZN third edition; ICZN
> 2nd ed. dictates that a name based on any family name must be based as its
eponym on the oldest
> family included. That is Caenagnathoidea. This was changed in Sereno, 2000
to Caenagnathoidea.
> Therefore, unless there is a way to reuse this, it is a subjective junior
homodefinitional synonym
> of Caenagnathoidea.

I see.

> As for the shape of the jaw being indicative of caenagnathids, this is
true
> also of many other birds. The implication of a caenagnathid affinity is
suggested nearly solely on
> [...]

Sure, but I was asking about the "internal pillar of bone supporting a
midline ridge [...] present in oviraptoroids^2" but not the fossil in
question.

> Therefore, Stadham's _tentative_ (in his own
> words) referral is logical. As said in his own reply to Dyke and Mayr.

As I wrote, it _is_ most parsimonious, but IMHO this is a case where
parsimony probably meets its borders.

> <Ref. 2 is the description of *Caenagnathasia* which I haven't had time to
copy so far:>
>
>   *Caenagnathasia* does not resemble this jaw in any way.

Nobody said it does, its description is simply the ref for the character
mentioned above.

> It is much more distinct in the nearly
> dentigenous nature of the jaw as to be as far from an avian type as can
be.

"Nearly dentigerous"? Does it "nearly have teeth", or am I misinterpreting a
possible typo of yours? ~:-|