My Phylogeny: Growing Science (and growing e-mails)

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mickey Mortimer" <Mickey_Mortimer11@msn.com>
Subject: Re: My Phylogeny: Now Accelerating Comes Science


> 1. Rahonavis has an unreduced pubic apron (Forster et al., 1998).

True, I misinterpreted that. They have it as a synapomorphy of Metornithes.

> 2. Avimimus has a ventrally and distally broken ischium, making it hard to
> say whether the obturator process was reduced or prominently triangular
> (Kurzanov, 1987)

I see. Where have you got that paper from?

> 3. Where did you learn Nomingia, Avimimus, Bambiraptor and
Sinornithosaurus
> have ischial symphyses?

Might be typos. I don't actually know :-]

> I have Archaeopteryx coded as lacking an ischial
> symphysis (Forster et al., 1998-

True. This is also where I learned that troodontids lack it too.

> why couldn't you have more cranial characters? :-)

Such as? :-9

> 5. There's always "Ginnareemimus", the Thai ornithomimosaur without an
> arctometatarsus. But I would leave ornithomimosaurs "2" until its identity
> is ascertained.

Does it really lack the condition?

> Bambiraptor is not "sub-arctometatarsalian", it's similar
> to dromaeosaurids (unpublished, online).

OIC. That makes a difference between it and *Sinornithosaurus* at last --
save for question marks they are coded the same so far.

> Archaeopteryx is not "sub-arctometatarsalian" either, having a proximally
> reduced mtIII like Deinonychus (Wellnhofer, 1992).

All I have is the illustration in the 1996 Feduccia book. There it looks
_antarctometatarsal_ actually. I gave it state 1 for its long, narrow
metatarsus... :-)

> Yandangornis and pygostylians actually have
> a proximally expanded third metatarsal, more primitive than most
> maniraptoriformes.  I'm sure Holtz would agree the derived condition of
> mtIII being ventrally placed in these taxa is unrelated to
arctometatarsaly,
> or at least shouldn't be coded as such a priori.

Yet another state? Or another character? *Ornithomimus* has plantarly placed
proximal mt III, too.

> 6. The tail of Bambiraptor is only partially known, and that of
> Sinornithosaurus is known from a small fragment, unless you're using cf.
> Sinornithosaurus too.  I wouldn't code caenagnathids until we know how
much
> of the new skeletons are real (same for the next character for all these
> taxa).  I would agree alvarezsaurids are probably "0", after the new news
of
> Shuvuuia and Alvarezsaurus' long tail.
> 7. Might want different dividing points (like over 50), as Deinonychus has
> about 40 and some ornithomimids have 39.  Bagaraatan has over 25.

Then *Ornitholestes* (I counted 43 in Glut's Encyclopedia p. 644) comes in,
and I have, should I use *Allosaurus* as an outgroup, a synapomorphy of
Coelurosauria excluding Compsognathidae. Rather uninformative as long as I
have no outgroup.

> It looks like only one vertebra is missing from Yandangornis, so
> I'd be confident coding it "0".

How can one know that?

> 9. I have Erlikosaurus as "0".  Caudipteryx is coded "0" by others, I
think
> Jaime suggested it was "1", but I can't see it.

I gave segnosaurs a "?"...

> Where did you get codings for Bambiraptor and Sinornithosaurus?
> 10. How did you code Sinornithosaurus?  Its ilia are preserved in ventral
> and medial views.

Of course nonsense. My errors.

> 11. Bagaraatan and troodontids have trochanteric crests, though you can
see
> where the division was in the former.  Again, how did you code
> Sinornithosaurus?

I just wrote "According to the same paper troodontids don't have an
undivided trochanteric crest. Has that turned out to be wrong?". This was
based on the fact that Forster et al. use this character as a synapomorphy
of an exclusive (*Rahona[vis]* + Metornithes) clade and not as one of the
(Troodontidae + Aves) clade. I based the assumption that nothing else has
that crest on that. Apparently wrong.

> Alvarezsaurus and Patagonykus lack trochanteric crests,
> so Alvarezsauridae should be coded "0".

I hate basal alvarezsaurids... ;-)

> 12. How did you code compsognathids, Nomingia, Bambiraptor,
Sinornithosaurus

I really did... embarrassing...

> and Archaeopteryx?

>From the Forster et al. paper.

> Avimimus has the derived state.

Good.

> 13. I haven't looked at this character, but it may be a partial repeat of
6.

Only when the lower limb : femur ratios are constant.

> Bagaraatan has an uncertain femoral length and unknown tail length.

Oops! Apparently it was later at night than I thought...

> *copy, paste* I wouldn't
> code caenagnathids until we know how much of the new skeletons are real.

At least the 1997 paper on *Chirostenotes* doesn't contradict that...

> I suppose the lack
> of Nomingia metatarsi might allow you to assume it has a long leg/tail
> ratio, just because of the very short tail.

True.

> 14. Very odd coding you have here, I'd recommend splitting the character
up.
> If I had to use your codings, I would do it as seen above.  But I think
> length of prezygopophyses is more useful to use than mobility, as the
latter
> is hard to determine without articulated specimens to examine.  Even
> dromaeosaurids could bend their tail distally quite a lot, as shown by
> articulated Velociraptor specimens.

OK. Then I have to dig myself deeply into the literature...

> 15. Troodontids have six sacrals.

It is coded that way. You looked at the wrong spot :-)

> You'll have to decide just what you
> define as sacral vertebrae in Nomingia- seven vertebrae have attached
> centra, six contact the ilia, five have fused neural arches.

Then I'll say six or seven which is coded the same :-) Fused neural arches
are rather rare in sacra.

> Dromaeosaurids
> (Velociraptor, Deinonychus) and Bambiraptor have five sacrals.

*Achillobator* has "a dorsal fused to the sacrals" or suchlike, and I wasn't
sure about, say, *Unenlagia*. (Which I, BTW, didn't code separately, I
simply trust your assignment of it to Dromaeosaurinae :-) ; according to an
SVP abstract *Utahraptor* will fall there too -- we'll know in a week.)

> I would want data from Mesozoic pygostylians before we code them.

Good idea, erm... but as long as there are none, I use living ones.

> 17. Why are tyrannosaurids coded as having narrow snouts, but
dromaeosaurids
> aren't?  Narrow snouts and central nasal ridges should be kept as separate
> characters.  The "narrow snout" character needs quantification, while the
> "central nasal ridge" character is problematic.

The "narrow snout" character is nonsense. It was a last-minute idea in order
to put ridgeless coelurosaurs somewhere.

> Nearly all maniraptoriformes seem to lack nasal ridges, central or paired.

Not according to PDW. Is that wrong?

> Dromaeosaurids have a sharp separation between the lateral
> and dorsal surfaces, but this may not have supported keratinous ridges.

I count this feature as "two ridges".

> Some oviraptorids have a central nasal crest.  I've coded your taxa for
the
> "central nasal ridge" character.

Just tell me how I could forget that. :-(

> 18. "Small pointed" interdental plates is the plesiomorphic condition of
> having them unfused, so you must reverse the polarity.  I've coded for
> "interdental plates fused or absent", that being the opposite.

Oh!

> 19. No ornithomimid furculae are known.

Typo! Typo! Typo! AAAH!

> oviraptorid furculae are pointed (Barsbold, 1981).

Hmm... they have a hypocleidium but not straight rami that meet at an angle.

> Padian et al. (2001) have suggested Caudipteryx's furcula may be broken,
> which would make it impossible to code.

What is this ref?

> 21. Oddly enough, we can't prove this in compsognathids yet.

Actually true.

> Basal pygostylians (confuciusornithids,
> Spanish nestling, Yanornis) have dorsal jugal processes.

I wanted to give Pygostylia a polymorphism, of course, and then forget. You
forgot too :-) :

> Pygostylia        11110 12111 112?1 ?0110 p0