Re: Dinosauricon Phylogeny: complete

["T. Michael Keesey" <mightyodinn@yahoo.com>]

--- David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "T. Michael Keesey" <mightyodinn@yahoo.com>
> 
> > >     # *Dromaeosauridae* _sensu stricto_
> > >       # *Velociraptor*
> > >       # *Dromaeosaurinae*
> > >         #?
> > >           # *Deinonychus*
> > >           # *Saurornitholestes*
> > >         #
> >
> > This is an interesting grouping.

I was referring to the bit that followed.
 
> 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."

Hmm, sounds like I should have this:

Aves sensu Chiappe
|--Ornithurae sensu lato
`--+--bavarica
   |--Archaeopteryx (=Jurapteryx)
   |  `--lithographica (=recurva)
   |--Archaeornis
   |  `--siemensii
   `--Wellnhoferia
      `--grandis

And then figure out where the non-type specimens go....
(No generic name has ever been proposed for _bavarica_, right? Is it possible
that it allies with one of the other three species to the exclusion of the
other two?)

> > 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.

I think that seems to be firming up....

> > > 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).

Ugh. Better re-read that.
 
> > > *Palintropus* could be a pangalliform,
> 
> Yay! I've fallen into the basic trap of phylogenetic nomenclature -- it
> could be a _non-galliform_ pangalliform. :-]

I would like to re-emphasize that "pangalliform" is not a published term, but
an error committed by myself.
(And I do have it as 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...

I'll get rid of it -- don't really need it anyway.
 
> > 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...

I'm aware, but it seemed to be the best choice for now.

=====
=====> T. Michael Keesey <keesey@bigfoot.com>
=====> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
=====> BloodySteak <http://bloodysteak.com>
=====> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
=====

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com