RE: Introducing Mahakala omnogovae, little dromaeosaurid of Mongolia

[Michael Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>]

Tim Williams wrote-

> Turner &c also find a Microraptorinae+Unenlagiinae clade.  The name 
> Microraptoria is actually available for this clade, given Senter's original 
> definition ("Taxa that are more closely related to _Microraptor_ than to 
> _Velociraptor_ or _Dromaeosaurus.")  So Microraptoria and Microraptorinae 
> could both be used, if we employ the emended (and narrower) definition of 
> Microraptorinae.

Interesting solution.

> Other minor details include the recovery of an _Archaeopteryx+_Jeholornis_ 
> clade, as Tom mentioned.  No modern bird taxa were included in the 
> analysis, so it'll be interesting what impact (if any) the inclusion of 
> neornithean taxa would have on the position of _Rahonavis_ within the 
> Dromaeosauridae, or on the _Archaeopteryx+_Jeholornis_ clade (and what this 
> clade would be called).  (The name Archaeopterygidae is available, but as 
> defined by Sereno (2005) this uses _Passer_ as a specifier - as do many 
> definitions).  Interestingly, Turner &c opt for the name _Jeholornis_ over 
> _Shenzhouraptor_.  (For one perspective on why _Jeholornis_ might qualify 
> as the senior synonym of _Shenzhouraptor_, see 
> http://dml.cmnh.org/2006Apr/msg00228.html).

Turner et al. include Apsaravis and Yixianornis in addition to the more 
basal Confuciusornis and Sapeornis in their analysis.  Of course the TWG 
matrix wasn't designed to determine relationships within Avialae, so any 
structure within that clade is fortuitous.

Turner et al. don't necessarily include Shenzhouraptor in their Jeholornis 
OTU.  It's hard to tell.

> Also, _Rinchenia_ is changed back to _Oviraptor mongoliensis_ in the 
> phylogeny.  I don't know if this is a nomenclatural decison (the authors 
> aren't certain if it is a validly publsihed name) or a phylogenetic 
> decision (_philoceratops_ and _mongoliensis_ are recovered as sister taxa).

Much like Avialae, the TWG matrix was never designed to find relationships 
within Oviraptoridae.

I noted that the authors didn't code Mahakala correctly for several 
characters, even when they noted the correct coding in the text!  Notably, 
the non-enlarged otosphenoidal crest, slightly curved frontal margin of the 
supratemporal fossa and two-headed quadrate which contacts the braincase.

Also odd is that Daspletosaurus was added, but only coded for cranial 
characters.

Mickey Mortimer