|
Grant Harding wrote-
>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.
Not professional! Why I ought to.... ;-) If only I
had my degree....
>I'm not sure I understand. What's the difference
between this analysis and the one that generated my >website's
cladogram?
This one is just like the previous one, except for some added
characters and the fact that I've corrected codings for 41 of the
characters. Some characters were just horrible in retrospect, so they were
replaced. Others had some erroneous codings.
> +--Tyrannosauroidea
>Does this still include _Dryptosaurus_?
Technically, the tyrannosauroids and most of the "basal
coelurosaurs" are in a huge polytomy. My most recent "complete" analysis
does have it as a tyrannosauroid though. We'll see if that stays in place
once my characters are corrected....
> |--lots of basal coelurosaurs (compsognathids,
Coelurus, Ornitholestes,
> Scipionyx, etc.) >Is this a polytomy? Or do these all form a
clade?
Most are a polytomy including tyrannosauroids, as noted
above. Scipionyx is a bit higher though, and a compsognathid-Ornitholestes
clade higher still.
>What is _Caudipteryx_ sp. ?
Read http://www.cmnh.org/fun/dinosaur-archive/2001Feb/msg00333.html .
Basically, it's the new specimens described by Zhou et al. (2000), seemingly
distinct from C. zoui (= C. dongi?).
>Hokey geez. I think I'll wait to change my website
until you finish your in-progress revision. Pretty bizarre,
though.
That's a good idea. I plan to post about it when I'm
done, so you should know when that happens.
>Are you and Tim Williams still working on this
question?
Well, yes and no. It's a bit more complicated then we
thought....
Mickey Mortimer
|