Re: My Phylogeny: Now Slowly Comes Science

["Mickey Mortimer" <Mickey_Mortimer11@msn.com>]

David Marjanovic wrote-

> HP Mickey
> Mortimer urged that I quantify this. Now at last I have measured various
> skeletal drawings for the trunk length : leg length : tail length ratios.

Good first step.

> >From PDW (nearly all except *Torvosaurus* standardized to 1.3 cm femur
> length, therefore comparable to one another)

Ah, fond memories of using PDW as the basis for my codings in my first
attempts at a phylogenetic analysis back in 1994... One thing to note is
that specimens are often more incomplete than shown by Paul, or have been
redescribed since 1988.  A few examples are below.

> taxon trunk length leg length tail length
> Lagosuchus 3.1 4.7 9

This is Marasuchus now.  Using actual measurements from Sereno and Arcucci
(1994), the ratios would be 2.8, 3.7, 9.1.  The tail length is uncertain
though, as only twenty-five caudals are preserved.

> Stauriko. 2.6 4 8.7

The metatarsus is unknown....

> Herrera. 2.8 3.8 7.8

>From Sereno and Novas (1993)- 1.8 3.1 5.6

> Dilopho. 3.1 3.2 8.3

>From Welles (1984)- the tail is 7.2

> Baryonyx 2.8 3.2 7.1

Paul drew this before the skeleton was completely published.The tail and
hindlimbs are much too fragmentary to get a length estimate of, and only the
femoral ends are preserved, so comparing the incomplete dorsal column would
be fruitless as well.

> Torvo. 3.8 3.9 9.2

No femur is known, all remains are pretty much unassociated, making length
comparisons difficult.

> Yangchuan. 2.6 3.1 6.9

Only the tail base is known.....

> Compsognathus 3.4 4.3 10.9

Only proximal caudals known.

> Troodon > 2.3 4.1 < 8.3
> (fragmentary, reconstructed after dromaeosaurs)

So much so that I wouldn't trust it.

> Oviraptor 2.4 3.7 ~5?
> (but see below)

I'd look at the actual skeleton of Citipati sp. for this-
www.netlaputa.ne.jp/~pantheon/ovi1.jpg

> Carcharo. 2.4 2.7 6.3

Because we have so many vertebrae referred to this taxon ;-)

> Eotyrannus 2.3 4.2 5.9

You do know that vertebrae are fragmentary and undescribed, while the femur
and tibia have unknown lengths?

> Caudipteryx 2.6 5.1 2.6

How did you get 5.1?  The hindlimb would be 3.9-4.

> Summary: Ceratosaurs (whether paraphyletic or not) have long trunks and
> short legs; tetanurans tend to have trunk lengths under 3 in PDW;
> tyrannosaurs have longer legs and shorter tails than allosaurs; even
though
> ornithomimosaurs and troodontids have quite long legs, those of
> *Archaeopteryx*, oviraptorosaurs, *Avimimus* and Metornithes are often
> longer; *Archaeopteryx*, "enigmosaurs", *Yandangornis* and Metornithes
have
> very short tails. Small size and juvenile age mean shorter trunks, longer
> legs and shorter tails. Basal Dinosauriformes and *Compsognathus* have
legs
> as long as in oviraptorosaurs, but much longer tails. *Caudipteryx* has
damn
> long legs and an incredibly short tail. %*)
>
> => The proportions of "enigmosaurs" and birds are indeed similar, probably
> similar enough to be synapomorphic. *Archaeopteryx* must be regarded as
> convergence or perhaps symplesiomorphy...

I would agree as a general trend, theropods decreased trunk and tail length
compared to femoral length.  I also think a low tail/femur ratio would be
good for an "enigmosaur"+metornithine synapomorphy, if Rahonavis and
Archaeopteryx are more basal.
Tail/Femoral ratios-
Confuc-1.08
Caudi-1.22
Nomingia- 1.81
Ovir-2.24
protar-2.27
Yandang-2.88
Alxa-2.9
monon-3.19
Ornithom- 3.56-3.6
Rahona-~3.7
Archae-3.78
Trood-4.07
Micro-4.16
Deinon-5.88

Mickey Mortimer