|
Mickey Mortimer wrote:
> Congratulations Grant! I
appreciate you using my analysis as the basis for the cladogram, and your use of
the following
> sentence- "The phylogeny is tentative, however, and may
change."
Well, you told me yourself how uncertain it was. I also
tried to follow HP Holtz's recommendations about making it clear that the study
was not professional.
> Removing the flight-related characters from my
revision-in-prep analysis creates a different phylogeny than your
website-
I'm not sure I understand. What's the difference between
this analysis and the one that generated my website's cladogram?
> +--Tyrannosauroidea
Does this still include _Dryptosaurus_?
> |--lots of basal coelurosaurs (compsognathids, Coelurus, Ornitholestes, > Scipionyx, etc.) Is this a polytomy? Or do these all form a
clade?
> `--+--+--+--Ornithomimosauria
> | | `--+--Alvarezsauridae > | | `--Avimimus > | `--+--+--Segnosauria > | | `--Protarchaeopteryx > | `--+--Caudipteryx zoui > | `--+--Caudipteryx? sp. What is _Caudipteryx_ sp. ?
>
|
`--+--Microvenator
> | `--Oviraptorosauria sensu stricto > `--+--Bagaraatan > `--+--Deinonychosauria (incl. Sinornithosaurus, Bambiraptor, > Achillobator) > `--+--Troodontidae > `--+--Microraptor > `--+--Archaeopteryx > `--+--+--Rahonavis > | `--Unenlagia > `--+--Yandangornis > `--Pygostylia Hokey geez. I think I'll wait to change my website until
you finish your in-progress revision. Pretty bizarre, though.
Tracy Ford wrote:
> There IS tyrannosaurid teeth from the Late Jurassic in
North America and
> Portugal (See Ford and Chure at the poster section at
this years SVP).
These are not included simply because they have not yet been
named. I am only including dinosaurs with names in my
"database".
> Also Stokesaurus does have
tryannosaurid affinities.
True. The analysis I used placed _Stokesosaurus_ within
Tyrannosauroidea, more advanced than _Siamotyrannus_ and in a trichotomy with
_Dryptosaurus_ and Tyrannosaurinae. 'Course, that might all be different
now... :)
> They must have split off before that.
Before what?
T. Mike Keesey wrote:
> [Saururae] has been spelled both ways -- not sure
which has priority. But there
> are several possibly more appropriate choices for the
name of this clade,
> such as Archaeornithes or
Archaeopterygiformes.
Out of curiosity, what makes those names more appropriate than
Saururae/Sauriurae?
(And if the phylogeny Mickey posted above continues to be
supported, it's a moot point because there is nothing in the
{_Archaeopteryx_ <-- Neornithes} clade except _Archaeopteryx_ itself.)
Mickey Mortimer wrote:
> Thanks. I'm glad you like it, but again I must
emphasize my matrix needs
> some serious work, which is in process. Forty-one
characters done, 306 to
> go.... As I say above, once this "serious work" is finished and
all 306 characters have been made more accurate, my site will be updated with
Mickey's new results.
> especially considering that in what way many of these
characters relate to
> flight is poorly understood, as is the probability of
reversals once a taxon
> is flightless.
Are you and Tim Williams still working on this
question?
> No, [Nomingia is] the sister to Microvenator +
Oviraptorosauria sensu stricto. I
> left it out because it wasn't in Grant's
tree.
Well, it was - it was classified within
Caudipteridae. But no matter.
Thanks to everybody for all these
comments/compliments/criticisms. Please, keep 'em coming!
-Grant Harding
|