Re: my phylogeny growing

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

Ken Kinman wrote-

>      Is there any particular reason you chose to believe Norell and
> Makovicky (1997) rather than Forster (1998) about the ischial symphysis in
> Archaeopteryx?  Did someone goof or is this some difference of
> interpretation among these authors (or could it be different in different
> specimens)?

Mainly because Norell and Makovicky specifically state it, while Forster et
al. only code it in a matrix.  I feel it is more difficult to make a mistake
in a sentence than a coding, but this is just my stardard way of dealing
with problems like this.  There could very well be a difference in each
author's interpretation of what constitutes an ischial symphysis.  Different
specimens could be the cause, but in this case I doubt it.  If anyone has a
good photo of the Solnhofen specimen, they might be able to tell.

>      Also, I wondered if you could elaborate on the proximally expanded
mt3
> of Yandangornis and pygostylians being "more primitive" than that of most
> maniraptoriformes.  Do you see this as a reversal to a plesiomorphic state
> (at least in the proximal region)?

Well, taxa like Yandangornis, Hulsanpes, confuciusornithids,
enantiornithines and Patagopteryx have a third metatarsal that expands
proximally in anterior view.  Other coelurosaurs, even
non-arctometatarsalian ones (eg. dromaeosaurids, oviraptorids) have
proximally narrowed third metatarsals.  Only Compsognathus and Deltadromeus
seem to lack any proximal narrowing.  Ornithurines also have proximally
narrowed metatarsals, though the morphology seems different in detail.  I
think the majority of characters indicate a reversal to proximally unreduced
third metatarsals in pygostylians.

Mickey Mortimer