tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post270179894727668414..comments2024-03-17T01:48:59.504-07:00Comments on The Theropod Database Blog: Phylogeny of the Lori analysis 2 - TopologyMickey Mortimerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08831823442911513851noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-9927480372725096002024-03-17T01:27:51.142-07:002024-03-17T01:27:51.142-07:00That would be a tedious task resulting in lots of ...That would be a tedious task resulting in lots of polytomies I'm sure, but Cau's arguments are sound. A eudromaeosaur/caenagnathid chimaera sounds like something that might pop out among unenlagiines considering the gracility of the latter. Although I wouldn't say Dakotaraptor doesn't exist, but instead it depends on what element is used as the lectotype.Mickey Mortimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08831823442911513851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-16554665930880342932024-03-16T09:51:13.156-07:002024-03-16T09:51:13.156-07:00I was wondering, what happens if every part of Dak...I was wondering, what happens if every part of Dakotaraptor is tested as a separate OTU? <br />https://theropoda.blogspot.com/2023/09/dakotaraptor-non-esiste.htmlDinosaurshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04712765307482593424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-27111909131091554422019-07-20T18:55:31.132-07:002019-07-20T18:55:31.132-07:00The paper "Pre-Archaeopteryx coelurosaurian d...The paper "Pre-<i>Archaeopteryx</i> coelurosaurian dinosaurs and their implications for understanding avian origins". Archaeopterygids are deinonychosaurs, scansoriopterygids are oviraptorosaurs & the latter are sister to birds.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14334710938603889552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-80126460637416165682019-07-20T12:41:10.704-07:002019-07-20T12:41:10.704-07:00I've seen it argued that since "the Miess...<i>I've seen it argued that since "the Miessler family" is a singular unit, the "-i" suffix is technically acceptable.</i><br /><br />That's not how Latin works. The Iulius/Iulia family is collectively referred to as Iulii, plural. If anything can save <i>Avaceratops lammersi</i>, it's whatever the intended meaning of Art. 31–33 is.<br /><br />One institute, on the hand, is of course singular. Its name refers to it, not to any components.David Marjanovićhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00233722577300632805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-29951487111035828612019-07-18T21:58:49.460-07:002019-07-18T21:58:49.460-07:00I'm not sure how much stock I should put in th...I'm not sure how much stock I should put in the topology of crown Aves, given that it wasn't the focus of the paper. But are you surprised that "saltariensis" (I guess this is "Martinavis saltariensis") and _Limenavis_ both end up among the palaeognaths?Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17837037454015036429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-79154134388007853372019-07-16T19:23:34.979-07:002019-07-16T19:23:34.979-07:00I've seen it argued that since "the Miess...I've seen it argued that since "the Miessler family" is a singular unit, the "-i" suffix is technically acceptable. Much like how, say, Vegavis iaai uses the "-i" suffix, even though "the Instituto Antártico Argentino (IAA) expedition that collected the specimen" was made up of multiple people. Whereas had the etymology been "for Howard and Helen Miessler," the "-orum" suffix would be mandatory. At least, that's what Peter Dodson claimed in defense of the original spelling of Avaceratops lammersi, in his book The Horned Dinosaurs. The current ceratopsid literature does call it "lammersi."Bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03280788312471980634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-86883427600364467112019-07-16T15:28:13.320-07:002019-07-16T15:28:13.320-07:00oh interesting. Thank you for the answer.oh interesting. Thank you for the answer.Tomozaurushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07386477653195863958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-25666963352518319282019-07-15T21:15:15.320-07:002019-07-15T21:15:15.320-07:00Off a skim of the paper and post it's never ad...Off a skim of the paper and post it's never addressed how solid the grouping of Unenlagiinae and Halskaraptorinae is - how easy is it to move Halskaraptorinae to any number of other positions in Deinonychosauria?Amber Littlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04687388353006696077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-15526293735567538382019-07-15T18:33:45.391-07:002019-07-15T18:33:45.391-07:00A fun project? Sounds like a world of pain.A fun project? Sounds like a world of pain.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17837037454015036429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-4385296070418023892019-07-15T16:30:44.979-07:002019-07-15T16:30:44.979-07:00Aaaaarrrrrrrrgh. I overlooked this.
This is one o...Aaaaarrrrrrrrgh. I overlooked this.<br /><br />This is one of the many, many cases where the ICZN (Articles 31–33) is unclear on whether this is a correct or an incorrect original spelling.<br /><br />Seriously, how hard can it be to keep us out of that mess? English spelling distinguishes 's from s', too!David Marjanovićhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00233722577300632805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-15268143862472818002019-07-15T16:30:08.540-07:002019-07-15T16:30:08.540-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.David Marjanovićhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00233722577300632805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-74929163920722498052019-07-15T04:26:44.534-07:002019-07-15T04:26:44.534-07:00An interesting thing about the dromaeosaurid part ...An interesting thing about the dromaeosaurid part of the tree is that most suggested basic rearrangements happen in two steps or less. I found that Dromaeosaurinae is more inclusive than usual, and that Deinonychus and the Utah+Achillo pair make a third main clade. Rearranging these three clades into any combination takes 2 steps. Forcing Dromaeosaurus closer to Utah+Achillo than Deinonychus also takes 2 steps (IGM 100/22+23 follows).Mickey Mortimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08831823442911513851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-67412720395928594752019-07-15T04:14:44.400-07:002019-07-15T04:14:44.400-07:00Haven't checked Avimimus, and which Xu et al. ...Haven't checked Avimimus, and which Xu et al. topology do you mean? The Xiaotingia one?Mickey Mortimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08831823442911513851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-81597655613080260792019-07-15T04:12:29.398-07:002019-07-15T04:12:29.398-07:00First, the mpt is in the tnt file, so anyone can v...First, the mpt is in the tnt file, so anyone can view it. I'll post about it here at some point.<br /><br />"I don't see Mirischia on the cladogram. Is that because it is more basal than Ornitholestes, or because it is difficult to pin down?"<br /><br />It's a proceratosaurid/coelurid.<br /><br />""Megaraptorans and a clade of proceratosaurids and coelurids branch first after tyrannosauroids"<br />Which was more basal?"<br /><br />Megaraptorans.<br /><br />"Is it that both groups simultaneously go to Tyrannosauroidea in only four steps? Or each group separately? If separately, how many steps for both megaraptorans and coelurids+proceratosaurids to end up in Tyrannosauroidea?"<br /><br />Separately in 4 steps each. Have yet to check if both are forced there at once.<br /><br />"Is the Proceratosauridae you recovered limited to the usual suspects (Proceratosaurus, Guanlong, Sinotyrannus, Kileskus), or does it include others (e.g. Juratyrant, Stokesosaurus), as in Loewen et al. (2013)?"<br /><br />Proceratosaurids and coelurids mix together. Sinotyrannus is sister to Yutyrannus in Tyrannosauroidea, while Juratyrant is sister to Eotyrannus in Tyrannosauroidea. Stokesosaurus was excluded as it was too unstable.<br /><br />"5) Where did you find Bicentenaria, Zuolong, and Chilesaurus?"<br /><br />In the saved tree, Bicentenaria is a eustreptospondylid megalosauroid and Zuolong is the most basal megaraptoran. I can't remember if they can fall out in other places though. Chilesaurus was not included since I have no confidence its an averostran, but came out as an alvarezsauroid in an earlier version. I still have it scored, so I could check.<br /><br />"The cladogram only shows Ornitholestes+, but your analysis was much larger. Did you exclude the rest just for the sake of space? or because you're worried readers won't heed your warning that the matrix is not well-suited for assessing the relationships of non-Maniraptoromorphs?"<br /><br />Closer to the latter. They were included to help attract potential coelurosaur mimics like Afromimus and to provide a decently extensive outgroup to polarize Coelurus', Tanycdolagreus' and Ornitholestes' character states, to help test Rauhut's idea Lori could be a juvenile of those. But the topology itself is not based on good assumptions, so it's not something I wanted confused for a useful result.Mickey Mortimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08831823442911513851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-6980013541228229412019-07-15T03:52:10.452-07:002019-07-15T03:52:10.452-07:00I would need to score Protoavis. Which sounds lik...I would need to score Protoavis. Which sounds like a fun project and post, but merely out of historical interest since David's correct that the Protoavis animal hypothesized by Chatterjee isn't a thing.Mickey Mortimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08831823442911513851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-17519673362624092402019-07-15T03:48:58.542-07:002019-07-15T03:48:58.542-07:00I brought this up in review. (Hey Scott, I told yo...I brought this up in review. (Hey Scott, I told you someone would say this!...)Mickey Mortimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08831823442911513851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-22506926477973471672019-07-14T22:26:56.591-07:002019-07-14T22:26:56.591-07:00Apologies for indulging a personal tic and beating...Apologies for indulging a personal tic and beating a dead language to death, as I know your specialty is phylogeny and not alpha taxonomy or Clessical languages, but the statement, from the *Hesperornithoides* description, that "[t]he trivial epithet honors the Miessler family" is not quite accurate.<br /><br />That may have been the intent, but in actuality the form *miessleri* can only honor a single male individual of that family.Nick Pharrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07556905883894274292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-76465733107894181902019-07-14T16:18:27.678-07:002019-07-14T16:18:27.678-07:00It isn't accurate. The neck and probably the h...It isn't accurate. The neck and probably the head belong to a drepanosaurid; the ilium is pieced together from tiny fragments, and the space between them filled with glue; and so on.David Marjanovićhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00233722577300632805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-82424013887661258082019-07-14T10:22:53.369-07:002019-07-14T10:22:53.369-07:00Sorry for double-commenting, but how many steps ar...Sorry for double-commenting, but how many steps are needed for arctometatarsalian <i>Avimimus</i> or Xu <i>et al</i>.’s (2010) alternative pennaraptoran topology?Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14334710938603889552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-39621056343955794292019-07-14T10:10:37.795-07:002019-07-14T10:10:37.795-07:00What happens when “Protoavis” is added to the matr...What happens when “<i>Protoavis</i>” is added to the matrix (assuming Chatterjee’s description is accurate)?Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14334710938603889552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-41384018170534380162019-07-14T00:36:46.847-07:002019-07-14T00:36:46.847-07:00Some questions about more basal Coelurosauria, i.e...Some questions about more basal Coelurosauria, i.e. those more basal than the Ornitholestes+ clade shown in the cladogram.<br />1) "several taxa usually considered members of [Compsognathidae] (e.g., Huaxiagnathus, Juravenator, Mirischia, Sinocalliopteryx) branch off more basally"<br />I don't see Mirischia on the cladogram. Is that because it is more basal than Ornitholestes, or because it is difficult to pin down?<br /><br />2) "Megaraptorans and a clade of proceratosaurids and coelurids branch first after tyrannosauroids"<br />Which was more basal?<br /><br />3) "megaraptorans or the coelurid-proceratosaurid group can be constrained to Tyrannosauroidea in only four steps"<br />Is it that both groups simultaneously go to Tyrannosauroidea in only four steps? Or each group separately? If separately, how many steps for both megaraptorans and coelurids+proceratosaurids to end up in Tyrannosauroidea?<br /><br />4) Is the Proceratosauridae you recovered limited to the usual suspects (Proceratosaurus, Guanlong, Sinotyrannus, Kileskus), or does it include others (e.g. Juratyrant, Stokesosaurus), as in Loewen et al. (2013)?<br /><br />5) Where did you find Bicentenaria, Zuolong, and Chilesaurus?<br /><br />Lastly, The cladogram only shows Ornitholestes+, but your analysis was much larger. Did you exclude the rest just for the sake of space? or because you're worried readers won't heed your warning that the matrix is not well-suited for assessing the relationships of non-Maniraptoromorphs?<br />Seanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15326433983139314523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-51329890517932507892019-07-14T00:31:30.456-07:002019-07-14T00:31:30.456-07:00Speaking of the Alcmonavis paper, have you tested ...Speaking of the Alcmonavis paper, have you tested that ((Sapeornis+Jinguofortis)+Jeholornithidae) clade?Seanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15326433983139314523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-79573265748942207652019-07-13T23:04:08.944-07:002019-07-13T23:04:08.944-07:00"Did you mean “Laurasian”?"
That's ..."Did you mean “Laurasian”?"<br /><br />That's a mistake for my trying to say Cretaceous Europe often resembles Gondwana more than Northern Asia or North America (E.g. spinosaurids, abelisaurs, common titanosaurs).<br /><br />"Do you suspect that the basal placement of Lithornis is genuine (as Mayr has argued)?"<br /><br />I think we'd need a matrix with more paleognath characters than mine and more non-crown taxa than published paleognath analyses. <br /><br />"Do you trust oviraptorid Incisivosaurus or neoavian Paraortygoides?"<br /><br />No and no, the former only takes 1 step to change while the matrix has a distinct lack of proposed neoavian or galliform characters.<br /><br />"1. Paravian Protarchaeopteryx?" 3, it's in the paperr.<br /><br />"2. Avialan oviraptorosaurs?" 12, it's also in the paper.<br /><br />"6. Sauriurae?" 51 to join Archaeopteryx and enantiornithines to the exclusion of Aves, 57 if you want Confuciusornis in there too.<br /><br />I'll have to test the others.Mickey Mortimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08831823442911513851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-9903607361124999562019-07-13T22:32:36.877-07:002019-07-13T22:32:36.877-07:00"Assuming that your initial placement of Orni..."Assuming that your initial placement of Ornithodesmus in Unenlagiinae is correct, then Ornithodesmidae would have priority over Unenlagiinae and Unenlagiidae, and Unenlagiinae could become a subfamily given Ornithodesmus' older age."<br /><br />Technically yes, but realistically Ornithodesmus is only weakly supported as going there, so I wouldn't recommend changing any family-level names until better evidence than the Lori analysis was presented.<br /><br />"That would make six origins of flight, two of them within Unenlagiidae/Ornithodesmidae!"<br /><br />Unless Alcmonavis was closer to Rahonavis than to flightless unenlagiines, or if unenlagiines were primitively volant and lost flight 1-4 times.Mickey Mortimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08831823442911513851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-19429966770744516822019-07-13T22:15:16.375-07:002019-07-13T22:15:16.375-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Seanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15326433983139314523noreply@blogger.com