Reconstructions of Sinosauropteryx prima by me (top), and Peters (bottom), scaled to same femoral length. |
With his reconstructions being more or less fictional animals, it's no surprise the cladograms based on them will be equally unrealistic. And lo, they are! For fun, I give his cladogram from March 14th and applied phylogenetic nomenclature to see how it fares. I listed the assumed position of taxa not yet included, as they are specifiers of various clades. I also list where family-level taxa would have to be renamed due to ICZN rules.
Theropoda
|--Tawa
`--+--+--Staurikosaurus
| `--+--Segisaurus
| `--+--Guaibasaurus
| `--+--Marasuchus
| `--Procompsognathus
`--Avepoda
|--Coelophysoidea
| |--Dracoraptor
| `--+--Coelophysidae
| | Coelophysis
| `--Dilophosauridae
| Dilophosaurus
`--Neotheropoda (= Orionides, Avetheropoda, Neotetanurae)
|--Ceratosauria (= Spinosauroidea, Carnosauria, Deinocheiridae)
| Megalosauria
| |--Spinosauridae (= Proceratosauridae)
| | |--Proceratosaurus
| | `--+--Deinocheirus
| | `--+--Xiongguanlong
| | `--+--Sinocalliopteryx
| | `--+--Suchomimus
| | `--Spinosaurus
| `--+--+--Dilong
| | `--Guanlong
| `--Allosauroidea (= Neoceratosauria) (would need to be renamed Megalosauroidea)
| |--Abelisauroidea (= Metriacanthosauridae)
| | |--Yutyrannus
| | `--+--Sinraptor (assuming Metriacanthosaurus)
| | `--Abelisauridae
| | Majungasaurus (assuming Abelisaurus)
| `--Ceratosauridae (would need to be renamed Megalosauridae)
| Allosauria
| |--Allosauridae
| | Allosaurus
| `--Megalosauridae (= Megalosauroidea, Carcharodontosauridae)
| |--+--Sinosaurus
| | `--Monolophosaurus
| `--+--Acrocanthosaurus (assuming Carcharodontosaurus)
| `--+--Eustreptospondylus (assuming Megalosaurus)
| `--Ceratosaurus
`--Coelurosauria (= Tetanurae)
Maniraptoriformes (= Aviremigia, Tyrannoraptora, Bullatosauria)
|--Compsognathidae (= Tyrannosauroidea, Arctometatarsalia, Microraptoria)
| |--Ornithomimosauria
| | |--Compsognathus
| | `--Struthiomimus (assuming Ornithomimus)
| `--+--+--Ornitholestes
| | `--+--Microraptor
| | `--Sinornithosaurus
| `--+--Fukuivenator
| `--+--Tianyuraptor
| `--+--Zhenyuanlong
| `--+--Alioramini
| | Alioramus
| `--Tyrannosauridae
| |--Gorgosaurus
| `--Tyrannosauridae
`--Maniraptora
Pennaraptora (= Chuniaoae)
|--Caenagnathiformes (= Oviraptoriformes)
| |--Therizinosauria
| | |--Falcarius
| | `--+--Jianchangosaurus (assuming Therizinosaurus)
| | `--Rahonavis
| `--Oviraptorosauria
| |--+--Juravenator
| | `--Sinosauropteryx
| `--+--Limusaurus
| `--Khaan (assuming Caenagnathus and Oviraptor)
`--Paraves
|--Coeluridae
| |--Tanycolagreus (assuming Coelurus)
| `--Eotyrannus
`--Metornithes (= Eumaniraptora)
|--Dromaeosauridae (= Alvarezsauroidea, Alvarezsauria, Deinonychosauria)
| |--+--Haplocheirus
| | `--Shuvuuia (assuming Alvarezsaurus)
| `--+--Velociraptor (assuming Dromaeosaurus and Deinonychus)
| `--Balaur
`--Avialae (= Averaptora)
|--Sinornithoides (assuming Troodon)
`--+--Jinfengopteryginae
| Jinfengopteryx
`--+--Unenlagiinae
| |--Anchiornis
| `--+--Aurornis
| `--Buitreraptor (assuming Unenlagia)
`--+--Sinovenator
`--+--+--Eosinopteryx
| `--Xiaotingia
`--+--Thermopolis "Archaeopteryx"
`--Ornithothoraces (= Ornithes, Ornithopectae)
|--Archaeopterygidae (= Saurornithes, Enantiornithes)
| |--Archaeornis
| `--+--+--Archaeopteryx
| | `--Yixian embryo IVPP V14238
| `--+--Protopteryx
| `--+--Cathayornis (assuming Iberomesornis and Enantiornis)
| `--+--Pengornis
| `--Sulcavis
`--Ornithurae
|--Omnivoropterygiformes
| |--"Archaeopteryx" bavarica
| `--+--Mei
| `--Scansoriopterygidae
| |--Scansoriopteryx
| `--+--Yi
| `--+--Epidexipteryx
| `--Omnivoropteryx
`--+--Jeholornis
`--+--Jurapteryx
`--Pygostylia
|--Confuciusornithiformes
| |--Wellnhoferia
| `--Confuciusornis
`--Avebrevicauda
|--Chiappeavis
`--+--Sapeornis
`--+--Archaeornithura
`--+--Ichthyornis
`--Aves
|--Struthio
`--Gallus (assuming Passer)
That's pretty funny. Nomenclature fails in Allosauroidea and Compsognathidae, due to the weird topologies there where taxa not seen as closely related enough to need their neighbors as external specifiers suffer. Ditto for dromaeosaurids vs. alvarezsaurs. Also for archaeopterygids vs. enantiornithines, which no BAD analysis has ever recovered.
As for the topology, there's that sister clade to avepods, whose oldest family name would be Procompsognathidae, though none of the members have phylogenetic definitions attached to them. The division in neotheropods is sort of like Rauhut (2003), who had a huge Carnosauria. The most basal megalosaurians are all actually basal tyrannosauroids. Ornithomimids plus tyrannosaurids is a classic clade from Huene to Holtz, and Compsognathus being there reminds me of Olshevsky (1995) having it as a tyrannosaur. Funny how Peters recovered Enigmosauria, though no doubt for completely different reasons than the dinosaur community, given the inclusion of compsognathids, Limusaurus and Rahonavis. Troodontids and unenlagiines being avialans has been more popular recently (e.g. Agnolin and Novas, 2013), and the Archaeopteryx plus Enantiornithes pairing hearkens back to the BANDits' Sauriurae. Similarly, Confuciusornis being closer to Aves than enants reminds me of Kurochkin's (2006) ideas. And those are the only parallels I can make between Peters' non-consensus phylogeny and science. My head's full of non-traditional phylogenetic proposals, but Deinocheirus as a spinosaur, or microraptorans as basal tyrannosaurs while Velociraptor is by alvarezsaurs? That's just nuts.
So David, first I'd say you should start using the names Archaeornis, Jurapteryx and Wellnhoferia if you find these taxa away from the Archaeopteryx holotype. But also, I think it would be amusing if you added the following- Megalosaurus, Hexing, Nothronychus/Erlikosaurus, Caudipteryx, Achillobator, Dromaeosaurus and Patagopteryx.
Peters' reconstruction of Archaeornithura meemannae from 3-26-16, preserved in case it's deleted like the first was (though Peters to his partial credit does say "Updated March 16, 2016 with new images. The beak, if present, is ephemeral, questionable. Only two scores changed."). |
References- Olshevsky, 1995. The origin and evolution of the tyrannosaurids. Kyoryugaku Saizensen. 9, 92-119 (part 1); 10, 75-99 (part 2).
Rauhut, 2003. The interrelationships and evolution of basal theropod dinosaurs. Special Papers in Palaeontology. 69, 1-213.
Kurochkin, 2006. Parallel evolution of theropod dinosaurs and birds. Entomological Review. 86(suppl. 1), S45-S58.
Agnolin and Novas, 2013. Avian ancestors: A review of the phylogenetic relationships of the theropods Unenlagiidae, Microraptoria, Anchiornis and Scansoriopterygidae. Springer. 96 pp.
Why give time of day????
ReplyDeleteBecause I find it entertaining to analyze phylogenetic hypotheses, plus more anti-Peters media might help dissuade people from trusting him.
DeleteI don't know if I should laugh or cringe at that AWFUL cladogram. Seriousy, it's just...bleh.
ReplyDeleteI think your attempt at applying phylogenetic nomenclature to Peters' cladogram is doomed to failure, as it is based on the assumption that Peters' phylogeny is in any way going to follow a traditional topology. I mean, Rahonavis is related to basal therizinosaurs and Deinocheirus is a spinosaurid so I have no expectation that, for example, Therizinosaurus, will end up somewhere predictable.
ReplyDeleteAh, but the goal of phylogenetic nomenclature is that clade names will tell us where taxa fall in a phylogeny, and hypothetically _should_ be applicable in any realistic topology. That's why Sereno definitions are terrible, because they only function in his topology. So by utterly failing in several areas, it shows just how far from reality Peters is.
DeleteI think the Spinosauridae is probably the best part. Not just Deinocherius, but tyrannosauroids and oviraptorosaurs!
ReplyDeleteAs I discussed in my blog, Peters' topologies are statistically mid-way between pure randomly-built trees and parsimony. They are evidently wrong and evidently biased (someway).
ReplyDeleteThe lack of chevrons is really something!
ReplyDeletetaking 228 characters designed for amniote phylogeny and coding theropods for them is likely to give you a terrible result
Case in point: I once put myself (plus some human anatomy from Wikipedia) into a matrix of close to 300 characters designed for tetrapod phylogeny. One or two other synapsids were in the matrix. Instead, I came out next to the albanerpetid lissamphibians. I'm too far out for that character sample to handle. :-)