tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post2028066135785921774..comments2024-03-17T01:48:59.504-07:00Comments on The Theropod Database Blog: The Monster of Minden published at lastMickey Mortimerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08831823442911513851noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-58005829448969198612016-09-02T14:28:31.735-07:002016-09-02T14:28:31.735-07:00The Rauhut et al. paper only focused on megalosaur...The Rauhut et al. paper only focused on megalosaurids, not spinosaurids, even though Rauhut reached the exact same conclusion as Nizar Ibrahim (that Sigilmassasaurus is spinosaurid).Davidowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06099864739987549261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-24549853470553688012016-09-02T02:35:52.948-07:002016-09-02T02:35:52.948-07:00Evers et al. 2015 (Sigilmassasaurus) revised the p...Evers et al. 2015 (Sigilmassasaurus) revised the presacral vertebral characters in the Carrano et al. matrix, and several papers have added characters to it, so this isn't the first to modify it. Hopefully the newly modified matrix is up on Morphobank soon, though. Wait, when was Sciurumimus added to this matrix?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14361437858302104070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-6241409912678120212016-09-01T03:33:58.830-07:002016-09-01T03:33:58.830-07:00Of course. It's just a weird choice for a nam...Of course. It's just a weird choice for a name. Why not just use "anchiornithines"?Mickey Mortimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08831823442911513851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-79165731452352069022016-09-01T02:40:15.675-07:002016-09-01T02:40:15.675-07:00I'm pretty sure it's just a convenient lab...I'm pretty sure it's just a convenient label for the (<i>Xiaotingia</i>, (<i>Pedopenna</i>, <i>Anchiornis</i>, <i>Eosinopteryx</i>)) clade that was recovered in that exact position by Foth et al. (2014; see the paper for full ref), one of the analyses that the supertree is based on. As such, it's not "wrong", since it is clearly not intended as a formal name, and even its potential formal counterpart would only violate ICZN rules if it were erected as a family-level name.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11598308564383048574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-73900260490158008162016-08-31T12:50:20.725-07:002016-08-31T12:50:20.725-07:00I am very intrigued by "anchiornithosaurs&quo...I am very intrigued by "anchiornithosaurs" as well... I wonder if this is their equivalent to Chatterjee's Tetrapterygidae (without microraptorans of course, but the name of the family is still wrong if their type specimen for the family is <i>Anchiornis</i>)?Christopher Rigobellohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03895104827955224667noreply@blogger.com