Here's a place where I can post my thoughts on new papers, provide updates on my projects, and post info that will eventually be on my website The Theropod Database - https://theropoddatabase.github.io/ . It will center on theropods, but may delve into other topics as well such as phylogenetics.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
The Sauropodomorph Database is online!
Go check it out, in its bare bones form. As for me, I'm getting some sleep...
So basically you moved Mussaurus+Xixiposaurus closer to sauropods than massospondylids. It's possible, that's why their branch is marked "?". Unfortunately, Yates has yet to include either genus in his analyses, and I trust his more than Upchurch's. However, note that Yates et al.'s Aardonyx paper added info to Upchurch's matrix and found a topology more similar to Yates'. In this tree, Mussaurus+Coloradisaurus is placed near Massospondylus and Lufengosaurus (though Massospondylidae is not monophyletic in it) and not up by Yunnanosaurus and Jinshanosaurus. This is why I arranged it that way, but only future analyses will determine if that's right.
Why Sereno based Sauropodiformes on Mussaurus, a taxon where only juveniles have been described and which has not been included in many analyses, I'll never understand.
Because as more data are added, going from Galton and Upchurch (2004), to Upchurch et al. (2007), to Yates et al.'s (2010) addition of codings and Aardonyx to the latter matrix, the trees have changed to resemble Yates' more closely. This suggests to me that Yates' dataset more closely reflects reality in its basic structure.
Mickey, I'm no expert on this subject but I read about the evolution of prosauropods and felt so far that the cladogram would be well ...
ReplyDeleteThe first is your assumption, the second is so humble that he would propose as I know so far ...
Mickey Mortimer 2011
--Massopoda
`--Sauropodiformes
|--Gryponyx africanus
|*-"Gyposaurus" sinensis
|--Massospondylidae
| |--+--+--Massospondylus carinatus
| | | `--Massospondylus kaalae
| | `--+--Adeopapposaurus mognai
| | `--Seitaad ruessi
| `?-+--+--Coloradisaurus brevis
| | `?-+--Mussaurus patagonicus
| | `--Xixiposaurus suni
| `--+--Lufengosaurus huenei
| |?-Lufengosaurus? "changduensis"
| |?-Lufengosaurus? magnus
| `--Glacialisaurus hammeri
`-----+--Chuxiongosaurus lufengensis
|--Jingshanosaurus xinwaensis
|--Yunnanosaurus huangi
|?-Yunnanosaurus? robustus
`--Anchisauria
Rexisto 2011
--Massopoda
|--Gryponyx africanus
|*-"Gyposaurus" sinensis
|--Massospondylidae
| |--+--+--Massospondylus carinatus
| | | `--Massospondylus kaalae
| | `--+--Adeopapposaurus mognai
| | `--Seitaad ruessi
| `?-+--+--Coloradisaurus brevis
| `--+--Lufengosaurus huenei
| |?-Lufengosaurus? "changduensis"
| |?-Lufengosaurus? magnus
| `--Glacialisaurus hammeri
`--Sauropodiformes
`?-+--Mussaurus patagonicus
| `--Xixiposaurus suni
`-----+--Chuxiongosaurus lufengensis
|--Jingshanosaurus xinwaensis
|--Yunnanosaurus huangi
|?-Yunnanosaurus? robustus
`--Anchisauria
So basically you moved Mussaurus+Xixiposaurus closer to sauropods than massospondylids. It's possible, that's why their branch is marked "?". Unfortunately, Yates has yet to include either genus in his analyses, and I trust his more than Upchurch's. However, note that Yates et al.'s Aardonyx paper added info to Upchurch's matrix and found a topology more similar to Yates'. In this tree, Mussaurus+Coloradisaurus is placed near Massospondylus and Lufengosaurus (though Massospondylidae is not monophyletic in it) and not up by Yunnanosaurus and Jinshanosaurus. This is why I arranged it that way, but only future analyses will determine if that's right.
ReplyDeleteWhy Sereno based Sauropodiformes on Mussaurus, a taxon where only juveniles have been described and which has not been included in many analyses, I'll never understand.
Sauropodiformes group also moved, it is assumed that includes Mussaurus, Jingshanosaurus and Anchisaurus but excludes Riojasaurus and Massospondylus.
ReplyDeleteWith Yunnanosaurus authors are not quite sure to include or not etse group.
I trust his more than Upchurch's
ReplyDeleteWhy?
Because as more data are added, going from Galton and Upchurch (2004), to Upchurch et al. (2007), to Yates et al.'s (2010) addition of codings and Aardonyx to the latter matrix, the trees have changed to resemble Yates' more closely. This suggests to me that Yates' dataset more closely reflects reality in its basic structure.
ReplyDelete