Re: Tyrannosauroid material from Uzbekistan

[Tetsuto Miyashita <dinosaur238@yahoo.co.jp>]

Tim Williams <tijawi@gmail.com> wrote:

> > It's intriguing that it keeps going back and forth between the two extremes 
> > of non-avian coelurosaurs! Maybe
> > Dale Russell was right.
> 
> 
> Although a dromaeosaurid-tyrannosauroid clade seems unlikely, among
> coelurosaurs these are the only two groups that appear to have been
> adapted for tackling large prey.  Other coelurosaurs were adapted more
> for dealing with small prey, or were not predatory at all.

Yes -- and don't take me seriously on the dromaeosaurid-tyrannosauroid clade, 
As far as looking at the braincases, though, it is a fascinating exercise to 
come up with functional/morphogenetic explanations for some strange patterns 
emerging from conservation and variability. Stay tuned for a comprehensive 
analysis by Dave Dufeau and Lawrence Witmer.

> 
> 
> Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> wrote:
> 
> > And yet Miyashita (2011) found "A redescription of Itemirus medullaris from 
> > the Turonian of Uzbekistan supports
> >  the hypothesis that this taxon represents a relatively derived 
> > non-tyrannosaurid tyrannosauroid."  Will be
> > interesting to see his analysis, in addition to Sues and Averianov's.  Note 
> > Longrich and Currie's analysis only
> > included paravians, so could not recover a tyrannosauroid position.  No 
> > doubt the correct answer is that
> > Russell and Dong (1994) were right and dromaeosaurids and tyrannosaurids 
> > are sister taxa. ;)
> 
> 
> Interestingly (or not), if _Itemirus_ is a velociraptorine, then under
> ICZN rules Itemirinae would have priority over Velociraptorinae
> (Kurzanov, 1976 vs Barsbold, 1983).  But thankfully, when it comes to
> naming clades, we don't have to slavishly follow the ICZN .     :-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Tim
>