Re: New Theropods

[jrw6f@faraday.clas.virginia.edu]

>Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 11:01:28 -0400
>From: Stang1996@aol.com
>To: dinosaur
>Subject: New Theropods
>Message-ID: <9605241501.AA26371@lepomis.psych.upenn.edu>
>
>Hi everyone.  I've got a couple of questions about some newly
>discovered theropods (hence the title).  I just got the new National
>Geographic the other day.  It's very interesting, I like it better
>than the egg one.  I have a question about Sereno's new theropod
>called _Deltadromeus_.  He says it is a Coelurosaur (in the proper
>sense), but not what kind.  Does anyone know what of Coelurosaur it

Somewhere I heard it was alligned with Ornitholestes.  Read "basal
coelurosaur".

>is?  Is it possible that it is related to Baryonichids, Spinosaurids,
>Irritatorids or Troodontids?

        There appears to be a good deal of parralellism between
troodontids and spinosaurs (including Irritator and Archaeornithoides
as possible spinosaurs).  I have not read the paper yet (library gets
periodicals a week late, dagnabit!), but I feel confident in
predicting that few of these parralell lcharacters will show up in
Deltadromaeus [sic?].  The rough drawing given in National Geographic
seems to support the basal coelurosaurian hypothesis nicely.
       As for the the liklihood of spinosaurs being closely related to
troodontids, who knows (Tom Holtz?).  Personally, I doubt it.

>I would think that that might be a somewhat valid line of inquiry
>since, three of the four groups are known from northern Africa and
>or southern Europe.

        Those three being the least likely to be related to the fourth
(ie. troodontids).  BTW: I thought england was *northern* Europe :) ?
Also, something Paul Sereno is busy showing is that, although
different dynasties were in charge in different parts of the world in
the Cretaceous, there was some mixing.  I will not be surprised if a
spinosaur eventually shows up in early K North America (assuming
anything does).

>Also, I must now admit publicly that I believe Segnosaurs (I will
>not say the Th word) are probably bullatosaurs because of their
>theropod like braincases and nerve anatomy that I doubt would result
>from parallelism.  They are damned strange bullatosaurs, but
>bullatosaurs nonetheless.

        Erlicosaurs' skull does look a lot like a bullatosaur (or any
other coelurosaurs, for that matter).  In recent shots at my
"cladogram", they come out as either basal coelurosaurs or a sister to
the oviraptors (actually, that has died down a bit).  My interest is
piqued by this nerve anatomy thing.  Tell me, what is your source?
References preferrable!

Wagner
+----------------------------------------------------------+------------------+
! Jonathan R. Wagner                                !   "Camin-Sokal Pars-    !
! Graduate Student sans Portfolio                   !     imony couldn't help !
! jrw6f@virginia.edu                                !      you determine who  !
!     http://faraday.clas.virginia.edu/~jrw6f       !      your mother is..." ! 
!     Check out the paleo sections!!!!!!            !                 * * *   ! 
        
+----------------------------------------------------------+------------------+