Re: Coelurosaur analysis update

["Mickey Mortimer" <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com>]

David Marjanovic wrote-

> > |--Monolophosaurus
> > |--+--Sinraptor
> > |  `--Allosaurus
> > `--+--+--Bagaraatan
> >    |  `--Tyrannosauridae
>
> I'll blame the lack of coelurosaur synapomorphies for this... :-)

For what?  Bagaraatan in Tyrannosauroidea, or tyrannosauroids being so
basal?  Both occur in almost every run of my analysis.

> >                         `--+--+--Scansoriopterygidae
> >                            |  `--+--Rahonavis
> >                            |     `--+--+--Archaeopteryx
> >                            |        |  `--Wellnhoferia
> >                            |        `--+--Shenzhouraptor
> >                            |           `--Jixiangornis
>
> Yeahaah! Almost as if I'd constructed it! :-) Warning: including
> *Yandangornis* and *Hulsanpes* could destroy it. -- Just strange that the
> dromies are so far away...

Hulsanpes would definitely destroy it (and everything else), because it can
be coded for zero characters at this point. :-)
Including Yandangornis changes the Aves section to-
|--+--Scansoriopterygidae
|  `--+--Rahonavis
|     `--+--Archaeopteryx
|        `--Wellnhoferia
`--+--Shenzhouraptor
   `--+--Jixiangornis
      `--+--Yandangornis
         `--+--Sapeornis
            |--Confuciusornis
            |--Changchengornis
            `--+--Protopteryx
               |--Jibeinia
               `--Ornithothoraces

> > - enantiornithines as ornithuromorphs.
>
> Have you included the few enantiornithine and euenantiornithine
> synapomorphies that I have still found?

If you mean these-
Enantiornithes
12(1) 0.500 Hypocleideum long
27(1) 1.000 Femoral posterior trochanter hypertrophied
30(1) 1.000 Trochlea of mt II much broader than the trochlea of mt III
Euenantiornithes
2(1) 1.000 Parapophyses located in central part of the bodies of dorsal
vertebrae
17(1) 1.000 Dorsal margin of humeral head concave in its central portion,
rising ventrally and dorsally (hard to code for me -- no good illustrations)
18(1) 0.250 Prominent bicipital crest on humerus, cranioventrally
projecting: present
24(1) Mc III projecting distally more than mc II (ambiguous)
Then no, I have not.  I only have two furcular and one humeral character so
far, and have not included the parapophysis position yet.

Jaime Headden wrote-

>   Without seeing the character support, and given this is a largely
> cranial/pectoral/axial paper anyway, it is likely there are two things in
> the jaw of *Bagaraatan* forcing this association: the first is the
> antarticular shared in *Bagaraatan* and *Allosaurus*, providing a position
> that in other matrices is never found, where the former is far closer to
> birds than this. And the shape of the posterior jaw, which is
> tyrannosaurian in aspect generally. That the form was found in the Nemegt,
> and that nothing links the cranial to the postcranial, as the vertbrae
> preserves start at the hip, I would like to voice a question on the
> viability of the holotype as a whole as a whole animal. Nonethless, the
> jaw itself, aside from the dentary, is largely tyrannosaurid anyway, from
> the articular forward, a fact little commented upon by Osmólska (1996)
> herself. So I'd wait for: 1) a complete matrix; 2) tests to affirm the
> consistency of the cranial and postcranial material in *Bagaraatan*
> itself. This would seem only prudent given the unusual position, though
> not unlikely if it is a late surviving tyrannosauroid in the
> end-Cretaceous. "Yes," said the man: "question everything."

No, the antarticular is not a character in my analysis.  Note Holtz (2000)
also found Bagaraatan to be a basal coelurosaur, so this position is not
"never found".  Though the hindlimb has some derived characters, the tail is
primitive as well.  Your second "character" (posterior mandibular shape) is
rather ambiguous.  I'd also wait for a "whole" (lol) matrix for more firm
conclusions, but as of now, Bagaraatan is a tyrannosauroid in my analysis
based on-
- foramen aerum penetrating articular
- surangular foramen enlarged
- articular with elongate medial, posteromedial or dorsomedial process

> >>                 |     `--+--+--Caudipteryx zoui
> >>                 |        |  `--+--Nomingia
> >>                 |        |     `--+--Caudipteryx sp. nov.
> >>                 |        |        `--Avimimus
> >>                 |        `--+--Incisivosaurus
> >>                 |         [ `--other oviraptorosaurs ]
>
>   I would REALLY like to see the character support on this tree, though it
> does not differ much fomr some earlier speculations onlist. For instance,
> the sp. nov. of *Caudipteryx* refers to BMP 0001, otherwise considered a
> specimen on *C. zoui*. *Nomingia* may be the more complete skeleton of
> *Elmisaurus*, an idea I am sure has not occured to just myself. *Avimimus*
> and *Caudipteryx* typically share few features, and possess quite a few
> distinct structures in the arm, shoulder, hip, leg, and vertebrae, so this
> is of great interest, I am sure. Of course, would love to see the matrix
> completed, because this data would seem rather premature and misleading as
> characters are added and the remainder of the material analyzed.

While the data is premature in the sense it hasn't been "completed" yet,
calling it misleading is, well... misleading.  It's not like 186 cranial,
axial and pectoral characters are inherently worse than 186 characters from
the entire skeleton.  Both will be lacking vital data.  It would be
interesting if Nomingia were synonymous with Elmisaurus.
The avimimid-caudipterygid clade is diagnosed by-
- maxillary teeth absent (unknown in Nomingia and Avimimus)
- dorsal premaxillary process extends past antorbital fossa (unknown in
Nomingia and Avimimus)
- posterodorsal dentary process >8% of mandibular length (unknown in
Nomingia and Avimimus)
- dentary toothless (unknown in Nomingia)
- number of caudal vertebrae less than 24 (unknown in Avimimus)
- most elongate caudal prezygopophyses over 40% of centrum (unknown in
Avimimus)
- caudofemoral ratio less than 1.9 (unknown in Avimimus)
- posterior processes of distal chevrons formed from a new posteroventral
process (unknown in Avimimus)
- anterior edge of acromion process does not contact coracoid (unknown in
Nomingia and Avimimus)
Caudipteryx zoui is more basal than the others because it lacks-
- number of sacral vertebrae seven or more (unknown in C. sp. nov.)
Caudipteryx sp. nov. and Avimimus are sister taxa based on-
- dorsal pleurocoels absent (tentatively scored for C. sp. nov. based on
Zhou et al. 2000)
This section of my tree is not very stable, though all these taxa are
usually close to each other.

>   I am more surprised that *Apsaravis* was not found as a carinate even
> given the relatively limited matrix rendered here, or that the
> "ornithuromorph" complex is so unresolved; the position would offer that
> *Apsaravis* was an enantiornithine, which as far as I understand the pedal
> and pectoral material is as likely as *Incisivosaurus* as a basal
> tyrannosaur.

Clarke et al. noted the enantiornithine-like characters in Apsaravis.  It's
not like my tree supports Apsaravis as an enantiornithine sensu the current
usage (let alone the phylogenetic definition, which excludes Enantiornis
from Enantiornithes in my tree, damn choice of Sinornis as the reference
taxon), just a sister group to the "derived enantiornithines".  This is
based on-
- posterodorsal dentary process >8% of mandibular length (unknown in
Enantiornis and Neuquenornis)
- dentary toothless (unknown in Enantiornis and Neuquenornis)
- pneumotricipital fossa in proximocaudal/medial humerus (unknown in
Gobipteryx)

Mickey Mortimer