RE: Me vs. Makovicky et al.- comparison and consensus

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Michael Mortimer wrote:

> Plus, there are characters agreeing with my topology (e.g. coracoid bent at 
> level of tubercle in Patagonykus, but not Alvarezsaurus or Mononykus), and 
> Patagonykus lived earlier than Alvarezsaurus and is the largest 
> alvarezsaurid, so some data make more sense that way.

I was going to jump in and say "But what about _Rapator_!!??".  This is 
known from an alvarezsaurid-like phalanx, which is very large by 
alvarezsaurid standards.  But then I remembered it's a bad idea to 
extrapolate body size from a single phalanx; _Rapator_ may have had 
proportionately larger forelimbs compared to its relatives.

I am betting that the evolution of the alvarezsaurid forelimb was a 
fascinating process.  I wonder which came first: the specialized digging 
morphology or reduction in forelimb size; or did they evolve in tandem?

Jaime A. Headden wrote:

>   Mike Keesey himself (http://dml.cmnh.org/2001Sep/msg00403.html) makes 
> best
> the case for not using it on grounds that I've not used so far: it would
> probably need to be anchored on *Enigmosaurus* in accordance to the 
> PhyloCode
> at any point in which the name is actually published and therefore usable.

I didn't know this.  AFAIK, given that "Enigmosauria" has not been 
officially named, then there is no published etymology... so the name could 
simply mean "enigmatic lizards" and not be explicitly tied to the 
poorly-known genus _Enigmosaurus_.


>       |        `--+--Tanycolagreus
>       |           `--+--"*******saurus">

Looks like you're swearing.  :-)  The name has the same derivation as 
_Alxasaurus_, and AFAIK has not been published (outside of a thesis).

Cheers

Tim