RE: Fw: Applying Sereno's definitions to Neotetanurae Part 1

[Michael Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>]

David Marjanovic wrote-

> Ah, but no. Since he was too ignorant to correctly root his tree, we must 
> do it for him:
>
> +--allzero outgroup
> `--Tyrannoraptora
>   Maniraptoriformes
>   Eumaniraptora
>     |--Paraves
>     |  Aves
>     |    |--Archaeopterygidae
>     |    |    *Archaeopteryx*
>     |    `--Ornithurae
>     |         Carinatae
>     |         *Ichthyornis*
>     `--Ornithomimiformes
>        Oviraptoriformes
>          |--Dromaeosauridae
>          |    |--Tyrannosauroidea
>          |    |  *Tyrannosaurus*
>          |    `--*Deinonychus* ( + *Dromaeosaurus*?)
>          `--+--Troodontidae
>             |  *Troodon*
>             `--+--Oviraptorosauria
>                |  *Oviraptor*
>                `--+--Alvarezsauridae
>                   |  Mononykinae
>                   |  *Mononykus*
>                   |--Ornithomimosauria
>                   |  *Ornithomimus*
>                   `--*Struthiomimus*

True.  And if we eliminate the hypothetical outgroup and use Tyrannosaurus 
instead, we get-

|--Tyrannosaurus
|--Deinonychus
`--+--+--Struthiomimus
  |  `--Ornithomimus
  |--Mononykus
  |--Oviraptor
  |--Troodon
  `--+--Archaeopteryx
     `--Ichthyornis

Which isn't bad except for the placement of Deinonychus.
And if we correct his codings and use Tyrannosaurus as the outgroup, we get-

|--Tyrannosaurus
`--+--+--Struthiomimus
  |  `--Ornithomimus
  `--+--Mononykus
     `--+--Oviraptor
        |--Troodon
        |--Deinonychus
        `--+--Archaeopteryx
           `--Ichthyornis

Which matches the TWG's usual topology.

> > Norell et al., 2001 and modifications.
> > This tree is taken from Makovicky et al. (2005), incorporating the new 
> > characters and three therizinosaurs from Kirkland et al. (2005) and the
> > modifications to Archaeopteryx and Rahonavis suggested by Mayr et al.
> > (2005).
>
> Oho!
>
> What modifications did they suggest to *Rahonavis*?

Coding scapulocoracoid fusion (correctly) to absent.

> >               `--+--Oviraptoriformes
> >                  |  |--Therizinosauria
> >                  |  |  Therizinosauroidea
> >                  |  |  |--Erlikosaurus (+Therizinosaurus?)
> >                  |  |  |--Segnosaurus
> >                  |  |  |--Alxasaurus
> >                  |  |  `--+--Nothronychus
> >                  |  |     |--Beipiaosaurus
> >                  |  |     `--Falcarius
>
> Strange clade. Strikes me as... backwards... of course it's not a segnosaur 
> analysis, but maybe it indicates that the segnosaurs belong somewhere else 
> in the tree?

Note my analysis has Beipiaosaurus nested deeply within "Therizinosauria" 
too.  And Holtz et al.'s (2004) has Beipiaosaurus and Erlikosaurus nested to 
the exclusion of Nothronychus.  It seems whenever therizinosaurs are 
analyzed with a full set of characters, things go awry (though to be fair, 
my analysis lacks many relevent characters still).

> >                        `--Dromaeosauridae
> >                           |--Buitreraptor
> >                           |--Unenlagiinae
> >                           |  |--Unenlagia
> >                           |  `--Rahonavis
> >                           |--Microraptorinae
> >                           |  |--Microraptor
> >                           |  `--Sinornithosaurus
> >                           `--+--Velociraptorinae
> >                              |  |--Velociraptor
> >                              |  |--IGM 100/1015
> >                              |  `--Deinonychus
> >                              `--Dromaeosaurinae
> >                                 |--Saurornitholestes
> >                                 |--Adasaurus
> >                                 |--Achillobator
> >                                 |--Utahraptor
> >                                 `--Dromaeosaurus
>
> So Dromaeosauridae is restored, and *Buitreraptor* and even *Rahonavis* 
> stay inside...

Yes, but note this is the "uncorrected" matrix.  All codings are those which 
are published, not my corrected versions for many.

> > Chiappe and Walker, 2002
> > After deletion of many taxa, to provide structure to tree.
> >
> > |--Archaeopteryx
> > `--+--Eoenantiornis
> >   |--Sinornis
> >   |--Eoalulavis
> >   |--Gobipteryx
> >   `--+--Neuquenornis
> >      |--Concornis
> >      `--Enantiornis
>
> So not one of the names is applicable! :-D

Nope!  We'd need Passer somewhere, at least.  Though Archaeopterygidae and 
Enantiornithes would both be applicable if my recommended redefinitions were 
used.


> >         |              `--+--Tarbosaurus
> >         |                 `--+--Bagaraatan
> >         |                    `--+--Aviatyrannis
> >         |                       `--Tyrannosaurus
>
> Impressive :o)

Note I strongly doubt both of those placements.  From something I was typing 
up earlier...

Although Holtz has sixteen characters supporting placing Bagaraatan outside 
Tyrannosaurinae, only seven are valid- straight pubis (probably true, though 
the missing distal end makes it a bit uncertain); m. iliofibularis tubercle 
not bifurcated; short mid-caudal prezygapophyses; retroarticular process 
present (though it is concave posteriorly as in tyrannosaurids); sacral 
neural spines not fused into lamina; anterior trochanter extends less 
proximally; narrow lateral teeth. None are coded for my analysis yet.  Of 
the other nine, six aren't preserved in Bagaraatan (supracetabular crest 
shape; ischial shaft width; position of carinae on teeth; pectineal process 
presence; depth of posterior dentary, used in two different ways).  
Tarbosaurus has a posterior surangular foramen smaller than its promaxillary 
fenestra too.  The absent proximomedial fibular fossa is an apomorphy no 
matter where Bagaraatan goes if it's not a maniraptoran.  Holtz miscoded 
Bagaraatan as not having axially elongate distal caudal neural spines.  
Bagaraatan is sister to Tyrannosaurus in my tree because the pubis and 
ischium are fused in both.  Holtz's hypothesis is much better supported, and 
I agree Bagaraatan is below Dryptosaurus within Tyrannosauroidea.

And I think Aviatyrannis' position is based on its large antitrochanter, 
which could be due to distortion or breakage.

> >                        `--Carinatae
> >                           |--Ichthyornis
> >                           `--+--Hesperornithes
> >                              `--+--Iaceornis (+Passer?)
> >                                 `--+--Hongshanornis
> >                                    `--"Archaeorhynchus"
>
> These last two used to be the basalmost euorniths, and now they're among 
> the most derived ones... :-o

Well, they're always derived in my analyses so far.  See 
http://dml.cmnh.org/2005Dec/msg00237.html for details.

Mickey Mortimer