Re: My Phylogeny: Growing Science...

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mickey Mortimer" <Mickey_Mortimer11@msn.com>
To: <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 1:05 AM
Subject: Re: My Phylogeny: Growing Science...


> Oh, caenagnathOIds.  I was speaking of caenagnathids.  Oops.  Um,
> oviraptorids definitely have the primitive condition- look at the nesting
> Citipati.  Its ischia are strongly attached to each other.

Good.

> > So 0 for Dromaeosauridae and *Sinornithosaurus*, ? for Segnosauria and
> > Bambiraptor?
>
> That's all I can tell.  Some data matrix probably has segnosaurs coded as
> having a single-headed quadrate.  I think Clark et al. (1994) would have
> made a big deal about it if the quadrate was double-headed in
Erlikosaurus,
> but we'll see.

People knew at that time about the double-headed quadrates of oviraptorids
and didn't make a big deal about it. So I'll give them a question mark at
the moment.

> > So "Antitrochanter absent (0), small (1), big (2)"? Or is there a need
to
> > quantify that?
>
> I'm uncertain enough about how I'm going to distinguish the "prominent"
> antitrochantor from the "non-prominent or absent" antitrochantor once I
get
> to that character in my accuracy re-evaluation.  I wouldn't recommend
making
> it more complicated until you look at the evidence yourself.

When I make it simple, I end up saying "if I can see one on a photo or
drawing, then there is an antitrochanter"; then I have to code it as I
originally did... Maybe I could check on the mediocre-quality *Caudipteryx*
cast, though.