Re: Hwang et al. dataset runs

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

> I'm not sure what's up, I ran Hwang et al.'s original dataset in PAUP* 
> 4.0b10 and I could not recover anything more than a large polytomy of any 
> taxon more derived than the Tyrannosauridae.

Maybe you didn't make the ordered characters ordered?

> [...] _Archaeopteryx lithographica_ is so basal within Maniraptora.

It's just as basal as, say, Oviraptorosauria in there.

> I think the overall point that can be made by this, is that basal members 
> are very important in phylogeny.  Enigmosaur monophyly seems to be highly 
> dependent on basal members of both the Oviraptorosauria (_Caudipteryx_)
> and the Segnosauria (_Alxasaurus_).

BTW, is it interesting that *Incisivosaurus* has a triradiate palatine like
*Erlikosaurus* and *Archaeopteryx*, but unlike oviraptorids, or is it not
because so few coelurosaur palates are known?

> I would like to offer the suggestion that by including _Confuciusornis_, 
> _Archaeopteryx_ is no longer a basal maniraptor,

Well, (*C.* + *A.*) is now just as basal as *A.* was first.

> so whatever similarities it
> has with certain dromaeosaurids are intrepreted as convergent, which is
> why _Dromaeosaurus_ is more basal to the other dromaeosaurids.

I'd rather say that there are not enough of these similarities in the matrix
-- assuming it isn't a problem of ordered vs. unordered --, and therefore
birds and dromaeosaurids can't cluster. And then *D.* lacks something that the
other dromaeosaurids have. What could that be?

> `--+--Confuciusornis
>    `--+--Dromaeosaurus
>       `--+--Deinonychus
>          |--Adasaurus
>          |--Velociraptor
>          `--Saurornitholestes
>
> ...the change in the tree is surprising, I was clearly wrong about 
> _Confuciusornis_.  Instead, what do we find?

And why? :-o

-- 
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more  http://www.gmx.net +++
Bitte lächeln! Fotogalerie online mit GMX ohne eigene Homepage!