Re: noasaurids strikes back

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

Sebastian Apesteguia wrote-

> you are correct. Noasauridae was first and has priority. If Masiakass is
not
> closer than Velociss than to Noass, they are all noasaurids. Our first
> attempt to find a difference was with the pedal ungueal (that could be of
> course an autapomorphy, but it is so bizarre and well developed that sound
> strange isolated from a long lineage!). However, we think now that it is
not
> pedal but manual. Anyway we have a difference with Masiaka and we don't
know
> Velociss manus.

But you can't use a difference between Noasaurus and Masiakasaurus to
support placing Masiakasaurus and Velocisaurus together, if the character
state is unknown for Velocisaurus.  Velocisaurus could have manual unguals
like Noasaurus' for all you know.  The only part that can be compared
between all three taxa is the second metatarsal (and maybe a pedal phalanx,
if Noasaurus' isn't manual), and I can't find any characters in the
metatarsal to suggest how the taxa are interrelated.  Velocisaurus' has a
few apomorphies (much narrower shaft; reduced posteroproximal area;
distoventral sulcus absent).  The distal shapes of Noasaurus' and
Masiakasaurus' metatarsals are more similar to each other than either is to
Velocisaurus, but this could easily be due to great reduction in the latter.
So I see no reason to place Masiakasaurus closer to Velocisaurus than to
Noasaurus.  I should also note that if Velocisaurus is more closely related
to Noasaurus than it is to abelisaurids, it would be a noasaurid anyway,
according to Phylocode.  Wilson et al. (2003) defined Noasauridae as "the
most inclusive clade containing Noasaurus leali but not Carnotaurus
sastrei".

Mickey Mortimer