Re: Corrections Re: Pelvis of *Avimimus*

["David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> *Velociraptor,* for instance,
> has an ilium whose dorsal margin is curved sigmoidally in dorsal view
(read Norell and Makovicky,
> 1997, AMNovitates). The condition is also apparently present in other
avian-style "dromaeosaurs"
> including *Bambiraptor* and *Sinornithosaurus.*

There you have my problem -- I haven't found AMN anywhere so far. Maybe I'll
really have to order the papers directly from the AMNH but that would be
expensive... I have yet to find out whether the NHMW (natural history museum
here) has it in its library which may be inaccessible.
The type specimen of *Sinornithosaurus* does not appear to have the
character, judging from the drawing + photo in its description; the
postacetabular iliac alae flare laterally but don't get parallel again, what
is preserved strongly suggests the plesiomorphic parenthesis shape. The cf.
*Sinornithosaurus* specimen is in ventral view.
www.bambiraptor.com, the best photos I have of *Bambiraptor* :-] , doesn't
include a dorsal view either, but it's more detailed than I thought. The
ilia are _far_ apart cranially, and the dorsal margins apparently flare
laterally!
At least the hesperornithiforms do appear to have the "birdlike" condition,
but this is judging from drawings in lateral view. I haven't found a
neornithine without it yet.

> <<True: the space between the preacetabular alae became narrower dorsally,
and the space between
> the postacetabular alae became wider on the whole height.>>
>
>   1. Inclination of the dorsal margins of the iliac alae sagittally
(exaptation 1: ilia contact
> each other over the sacral neural spines, exaptation 2: ilia incline only
via the preacetabular
> alae on either side of the sacral neural spines, not contacting each
other).

yes

>   2. Iliac postacetabular alae flare laterally more than twice the width
of the supracetabular
> portion of the ilia.

Probably. But they don't just flare but get parallel farther caudally.
http://www.cmnh.org/fun/dinosaur-archive/2001Oct/msg00573.html lined up
enough to show what I mean, I think.

>   Also, it would be wise to look at _photos_ of the material, rather than
illustrations, [...]. Photos or
> more recent illustrations (of which I'm wary of) also tend to _up_ the
data over the apparent
> source of most of your conclusions.
> [...] you might want to get your hands on Osmólska,
> Roniewicz, & Barsbold, 1972, in _Pal. Pol._ for a clarification of pelvic
anatomy in this animal.
> Also, Osborn for *Tyrannosaurus*, etc. Primary literature.

Absolutely. But some primary literature is hard to come by. I'm stuck with
what I have and what is accessible in libraries here. I'd bet something that
zero copies of the 1905-or-whenever paper by Osborn exist in Austria.

That's why I do all this onlist rather than going ahead, flooding every
journal below the level of JVP with my ideas and then becoming very
embarrassed rather sooner than later.