Re: Dinosauricon Phylogeny: complete

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "T. Michael Keesey" <mightyodinn@yahoo.com>

> >     # *Dromaeosauridae* _sensu stricto_
> >       # *Velociraptor*
> >       # *Dromaeosaurinae*
> >         #?
> >           # *Deinonychus*
> >           # *Saurornitholestes*
> >         #
>
> This is an interesting grouping.

Not my idea. :-)

> > You separate *Archaeopteryx* and *Wellnhoferia*... but why not
*Archaeornis*
> > and *Jurapteryx*?
>
> The type species of those genera are regarded as synonyms of _A.
> lithographica_.

I see.

> I should probably look into this more, though. If only I had
> Chiappe's volume here with me now -- is _siemensii_ distinguished from
> _lithographica_ in it? If so, I might indeed recognize _Archaeornis_.

Elzanowski keeps *A. siemensii* separate. Page 132...
"_Diagnosis_ -- Smaller than *A. lithographica*, close in size to
*Archaeopteryx bavarica*. Preacetabular ilium without the iliofemoralis
internus fossa and ventral process. Pedal claws without flexor tubercles.
Tooth crowns consistently rounded in cross section. The humerus/ulna ratio
above 110 % and the femur/tibia ratio around 70 % or more."

> My plan was to place apomorphy-based names only at (or, to be precise,
just
> above) the nodes which they are *known* for.

Good idea.

> > * In my matrix *C.* differs from *Neuquenornis* only in the position of
its
> > question marks.
>
> Uh, which _C._?

Oops, *Cuspirostrisornis*. I added the preceding 2 sentences after I wrote
the above.

> > *Lectavis* may not even be enantiornithine.
> Heh -- sometimes it seems everything but _Enantiornis_ may not be
> enantiornithean....

In an earlier run of my analysis I got *Sinornis* closer to Neornithes than
(to) *Enantiornis*. No longer. :-) Although I get the lowest-ever number of
synapomorphies for Enantiornithes, namely 3.

> > *Nanantius* is Ornithothoraces incertae sedis -- it could be a derived
> > enantiornithine, or related to *Apsaravis*, or who knows.
>
> So many opinions --

It's difficult to have an opinion about *N.*... I could have coded it for
_one_ character in my analysis...

> someone needs to do an expansive, published analysis of all
> non-ornithuran pygostylians.

:-) Obviously. But we need such an expansive coelurosaur analysis first, so
that we get the outgroup situation right.

> > Is *O[rnithurae]* _sensu medio_ defined?
>
> _sensu medio_ is Gauthier & de Queiroz 2001 -- I was under the impression
that
> it was roughly equivalent to _Avebrevicauda_.

That's what one should think. But instead, they take the neornithean aspect
of the pygostyle (short and bent upwards).

> > *Palintropus* could be a pangalliform,

Yay! I've fallen into the basic trap of phylogenetic nomenclature -- it
could be a _non-galliform_ pangalliform. :-]

> > What is *Omorhamphus*? I only know *Diatryma*...
>
> I'm curious, myself:
>
http://www.fmnh.helsinki.fi/users/haaramo/Metazoa/Deuterostoma/Chordata/Archosauria/Aves/Diatrymiformes.htm

Peculiar, peculiar...

> > Where does your phylogeny of *Neoaves* come from?
>
> Primarily Livezey & Zusi 2001. Instead of trying to forge a compromise
between
> all the different stuff out there, I decided to go with the most recent
and
> broad study.

OK, but it's 1/10 of a study, they're still collecting characters...