Re: "E"-nough already!

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

Jaime Headden wrote-

>   I beleive the separation of *E. canadensis* is no longer supported as
> all systematic analyses of the last decade have supported it as a
> juvenile, perhaps distinct species of, *Chasmosaurus.* So far, I beleive
> one and only one analysis suggests *E. canadensis* is a synonym of a
> chasmosaur species, likely *C. russelli*, on the basis of the elongate
> brow horns (*C. belli* has short ones, and *C. mariscalensis* is separated
> geographically and may be a southern endemic, not to mention a very basal
> form that may not actually be part of the stricter *Chasmosaurus*
> morphotype).

Actually, Godfrey and Holmes (1995) considered Eoceratops to be a junior
synonym of C. belli, not C. russelli.  Holmes et al. (2001) concured, while
Lehman (1998) considered all Northern Chasmosaurus to be C. belli.

> <Finally, 4): is the recently named _Epidendrosaurus_ a NON-Avian
> Dinosaur? Or is it an actual Avian?>
>
>   Onlist and off this is contentious. The original analysis Zhang et al.
> (2001) supports a near-avian relationship, as a member of Aves. Mickey
> Mortimer, onlist, supported an avian relationship. When characters were
> corrected in Zhang et al. (onlist) and re-ran in Xu et al.s *Sinovenator*
> matrix (onlist) -- as well as Holtz' 2000 GAIA matrix, which I never
> posted on, but retain the analysis info for -- it was found to be a basal
> maniraptoran, and the avian support almost entirely supported in the
> relative length of manus and arm, which may be convergent and stem from an
> apomorphic third finger length, not the second. Depending on a more
> complete analysis and evaluation of such contentious things like wether to
> use the proximal scapular glenoid to articulate the coracoid, whether it
> is anisodactyl (hallux is backwards), and use of proportions within the
> arm to identify avian clades or near-avian taxa (which have a highly
> significant functional aspect in that a long arm can serve more functions
> than flying, and both *Epidendrosaurus* and *Scansoriopteryx* lack
> pennaceous feathers one would expect if it were an avian or avialean with
> long arms (or even short)), this position may change.

I support an avialan relationship, not an avian one.  Immediately outside
Archaeopterygidae + more derived taxa (Rahonavis, Shenzhouraptor,
Jixiangornis, Yandangornis, Pygostylia).  This is based mostly on posterior
skull, caudal, ilial and pedal characters.  Actually, in my present
analysis, it is sometimes avian (archaeopterygiform) and sometimes a basal
deinonychosaur.  But most of the time, it's a basal avialan.  The only
integument preserved in Epidendrosaurus is some faint caudal material, while
the structure of Scansoropteryx's rather long arm feathers cannot be
determined.  There are faint suggestions of either type II or III feathers
in the latter, but I'm more cautious than Czerkas and Yuan in my
interpretation.

Mickey Mortimer