Saturday, January 29, 2011
If this were a scathing criticism of YOUR paper, would you want to be notified by me when I post it?
Title says it all, based on this comment. I know some professionals read my blog, so I'd be interested to hear your opinion.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Do they even understand the matrix they're coding?
You may remember my prior criticism of Hone and Benton (2008), who merged matrices when examining pterosaur relationships, but didn't combine equivalent OTUs. They had both Lepidosauromorpha AND the lepidosauromorphs Gephyrosaurus, Sphenodontia and Squamata. And they had both Choristodera AND the choristoderes Lazarussuchus, Cteniogenys and Champsosaurus. Disturbingly, each more inclusive OTU did not clade with its exemplars in their trees.
Well now we have another example of using matrices without taking equivalent OTUs into account. Yates (2004) had a sauropodomorph matrix where he tried two sets of outgroups. One was Herrerasaurus and (Neo)Theropoda, another was Ornithischia and an expanded Theropoda including Herrerasaurus. In the recent description of Chuxiongosaurus, Lu et al. (2010) used Yates' matrix but just ran the whole thing without noticing this. Thus we have a cladogram with "Neotheropoda" sister to "Theropods"... :| Herrerasaurus is the outgroup, probably because it is listed first in Yates' matrix, and Lu et al. didn't realize PAUP makes the first listed OTU the outgroup automatically. Thus Ornithischia (which really should be the outgroup) is sister to the double-theropod clade. What makes it especially sad is even if Lu et al. didn't read Yates' text, Yates labels the OTUs "Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis", "Theropoda (excluding Herrerasaurus)" and "Theropoda (including Herrerasaurus)" in his matrix. How can you copy codings from that and not realize those aren't all independant taxa?!
As an aside, I'd like to see Chuxiongosaurus compared to Yunnanosaurus and Jingshanosaurus. Thanks to Brad McFeeters for alerting me to this mess.
Coming soon, more Zhao taxa and part 2 of my recommended theropod clade definitions.
References- Hone and Benton, 2008. Contrasting supertree and total-evidence methods: the origin of the pterosaurs. Zitteliana. 28, 35-60.
Lu, Kobayashi, Li and Zhong, 2010. A new basal sauropod dinosaur from the Lufeng Basin, Yunnan Province, Southwestern China. Acta Geologica Sinica. 84(6), 1336-1342.
Yates, 2004. Anchisaurus polyzelus (Hitchcock): The smallest known sauropod dinosaur and the evolution of gigantism among sauropodomorph dinosaurs. Postilla. 230, 58 pp.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
"Damalosaurus" - Zhao's nomina nuda part 6
Following along our survey of Zhao's sauropods, note he originally spelled this one with an 'o', unlike most subsequent authors.
"Damalosaurus" Zhao, 1983
"Damalasaurus laticostalis" Zhao, 1985
"Damalasaurus magnus" Zhao, 1985
= "Damalosaurus laticostalis" [sic] Chure and McIntosh, 1989
= "Damalosaurus magnus" [sic] Chure and McIntosh, 1989
= "Damalasaurus magnas" [sic] Zhang and Li, 1997
Etymology- Named for Damala Mountain in Qamdo, with the species referring to wide ribs (laticostalis) or large size (magnus).
Early Jurassic
Middle Daye Group, Daye, Qamdo County, Tibet, China
Material- (~15 m) specimen including dorsal rib
Comments- The species is listed as "magnus" in the text, but "laticostalis" in the plate caption. Olshevsky (1991) listed "laticostalis as the type, though I consider it probable only one species is intended by Zhao since two are never present in faunal lists together (Zhao and Cheng, 1985; Zhang and Li, 1997; Fang et al., 2006). Fang et al. use "laticostalis" for the species, suggesting it is the intended one since Zhao is a coauthor. Zhao (1985) includes a photograph of a dorsal rib in situ, which the length estimate above is taken from assuming proportions like Barapasaurus. Glut (1997) incorrectly stated it is Middle Jurassic in age. Weishampel et al. (2004) list this as an undescribed sauropod in their faunal list.
Relationships- Stated by Zhao (1983, 1985) to be a primitive sauropod. Chure and McIntosh (1989) listed it as a cetiosaurid, while Lambert (1990) and Olshevsky (1991) listed it as a brachiosaurid. Glut (1997) only listed it as Sauropoda incertae sedis. Fang et al. (2006) place it in Cetiosauridae, noting again it's a primitive sauropod. As those authors placing it in Brachiosauridae have never seen the specimen, and brachiosaurids are currently unknown from Asia or the Early Jurassic, that assignment seems less likely. Since Cetiosauridae is currently viewed as a grade of basal eusauropods, "Damalosaurus" is here placed as Sauropoda incertae sedis.
"Damalosaurus" Zhao, 1983
"Damalasaurus laticostalis" Zhao, 1985
"Damalasaurus magnus" Zhao, 1985
= "Damalosaurus laticostalis" [sic] Chure and McIntosh, 1989
= "Damalosaurus magnus" [sic] Chure and McIntosh, 1989
= "Damalasaurus magnas" [sic] Zhang and Li, 1997
Etymology- Named for Damala Mountain in Qamdo, with the species referring to wide ribs (laticostalis) or large size (magnus).
Early Jurassic
Middle Daye Group, Daye, Qamdo County, Tibet, China
Material- (~15 m) specimen including dorsal rib
Comments- The species is listed as "magnus" in the text, but "laticostalis" in the plate caption. Olshevsky (1991) listed "laticostalis as the type, though I consider it probable only one species is intended by Zhao since two are never present in faunal lists together (Zhao and Cheng, 1985; Zhang and Li, 1997; Fang et al., 2006). Fang et al. use "laticostalis" for the species, suggesting it is the intended one since Zhao is a coauthor. Zhao (1985) includes a photograph of a dorsal rib in situ, which the length estimate above is taken from assuming proportions like Barapasaurus. Glut (1997) incorrectly stated it is Middle Jurassic in age. Weishampel et al. (2004) list this as an undescribed sauropod in their faunal list.
 |
| Dorsal rib of "Damalosaurus laticostalis/magnus" in matrix, from Zhao (1985). |
Relationships- Stated by Zhao (1983, 1985) to be a primitive sauropod. Chure and McIntosh (1989) listed it as a cetiosaurid, while Lambert (1990) and Olshevsky (1991) listed it as a brachiosaurid. Glut (1997) only listed it as Sauropoda incertae sedis. Fang et al. (2006) place it in Cetiosauridae, noting again it's a primitive sauropod. As those authors placing it in Brachiosauridae have never seen the specimen, and brachiosaurids are currently unknown from Asia or the Early Jurassic, that assignment seems less likely. Since Cetiosauridae is currently viewed as a grade of basal eusauropods, "Damalosaurus" is here placed as Sauropoda incertae sedis.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
"Oshanosaurus" - Zhao's nomina nuda part 5
"Oshanosaurus youngi" Zhao, 1985
Etymology- Oshan is a variant of Eshan, a county in Yunnan it was found in. The species name probably references famed Chinese paleontologist Young Zhongjian.
Hettangian, Early Jurassic
Zhangjiawa Member of the Lufeng Formation, Dianchung, Eshan County, Yunnan, China
Comments- Glut (1997) incorrectly stated it was found in Mongolia. I suspect this is an old name for Eshanosaurus, which has the same etymology, is also from the Dianzhong Basin of Eshan County, was discovered by Zhao in 1971 and was later described in part by him (Zhao and Xu, 1998; Xu et al., 2001).
Relationships- Stated by Zhao (1985) to be a primitive sauropod. Chure and McIntosh (1989), Lambert (1990) and provisionally Olshevsky (1991) listed it as a cetiosaurid. Glut (1997) listed it as a possible heterodontosaurid or "geranosaur", possibly because Zhao mentions it in the same sentence as Dianchungosaurus. As traditional Cetiosauridae now refers to a grade of basal eusauropods, ignoring the Eshanosaurus connection I would retain "Oshanosaurus" as Sauropoda incertae sedis.
While Eshanosaurus is corrently believed to be a therizinosaur, therizinosaur mandibles are quite similar to those of sauropodomorphs and were poorly known in the 1980s. Indeed, Eshanosaurus' mandible resembles those of basal eusauropods (e.g. Shunosaurus) more than basal sauropodomorphs in having a dorsoventrally expanded symphysis, anterior teeth the largest, a basolingual swelling on its teeth, a lingual median ridge on its teeth, and tooth roots expanded to be broader than their crowns. However, it is unlike eusauropods in having a narrow symphysis, smooth enamel, a lateral dentary ridge and perpendicular serrations on its teeth. Given Eshanosaurus' similar incongruity when considered as a therizinosaur (more derived than the much later Falcarius in having a decurved symphysis, lateral ridge and enlarged serrations; not to mention early appearence compared to other coelurosaurs), it may be convergent with both eusauropods and therizinosaurs.
References- Zhao and Xu, 1998. The oldest coelurosaurian. Natrure. 394, 234-235.
Xu, Zhao and Clark, 2001. A new therizinosaur from the Lower Jurassic Lower Lufeng Formation of Yunnan, China. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 21(3), 477-483.
Etymology- Oshan is a variant of Eshan, a county in Yunnan it was found in. The species name probably references famed Chinese paleontologist Young Zhongjian.
Hettangian, Early Jurassic
Zhangjiawa Member of the Lufeng Formation, Dianchung, Eshan County, Yunnan, China
 |
| Holotype anterior mandible of Eshanosaurus deguchiianus (IVPP V11579) in medial (A), dorsal (B) and lateral (C) views, and tooth in lingual (D), labial (E) and distal (F) views (after Xu et al., 2001). Is this "Oshanosaurus youngi"? |
Comments- Glut (1997) incorrectly stated it was found in Mongolia. I suspect this is an old name for Eshanosaurus, which has the same etymology, is also from the Dianzhong Basin of Eshan County, was discovered by Zhao in 1971 and was later described in part by him (Zhao and Xu, 1998; Xu et al., 2001).
Relationships- Stated by Zhao (1985) to be a primitive sauropod. Chure and McIntosh (1989), Lambert (1990) and provisionally Olshevsky (1991) listed it as a cetiosaurid. Glut (1997) listed it as a possible heterodontosaurid or "geranosaur", possibly because Zhao mentions it in the same sentence as Dianchungosaurus. As traditional Cetiosauridae now refers to a grade of basal eusauropods, ignoring the Eshanosaurus connection I would retain "Oshanosaurus" as Sauropoda incertae sedis.
While Eshanosaurus is corrently believed to be a therizinosaur, therizinosaur mandibles are quite similar to those of sauropodomorphs and were poorly known in the 1980s. Indeed, Eshanosaurus' mandible resembles those of basal eusauropods (e.g. Shunosaurus) more than basal sauropodomorphs in having a dorsoventrally expanded symphysis, anterior teeth the largest, a basolingual swelling on its teeth, a lingual median ridge on its teeth, and tooth roots expanded to be broader than their crowns. However, it is unlike eusauropods in having a narrow symphysis, smooth enamel, a lateral dentary ridge and perpendicular serrations on its teeth. Given Eshanosaurus' similar incongruity when considered as a therizinosaur (more derived than the much later Falcarius in having a decurved symphysis, lateral ridge and enlarged serrations; not to mention early appearence compared to other coelurosaurs), it may be convergent with both eusauropods and therizinosaurs.
References- Zhao and Xu, 1998. The oldest coelurosaurian. Natrure. 394, 234-235.
Xu, Zhao and Clark, 2001. A new therizinosaur from the Lower Jurassic Lower Lufeng Formation of Yunnan, China. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 21(3), 477-483.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
"Lancangosaurus" - Zhao's nomina nuda part 4
As always, general references are in the first post of the series.
"Lancangosaurus" Zhao, 1980
"Lancanjiangosaurus" Zhao, 1983
"Lancangjiangosaurus cachuensis" Zhao, 1985
"Lancanjiangosaurus cachuensis" Chure and McIntosh, 1989
"Lancanjiangosaurus cahuensis" Glut, 1997
"Lancanjiangosaurus cashuensis" Martin-Rolland, 1999
"Lanchangjiangosaurus cachuensis" Fang, Zhang, Lu, Han, Zhao and Li, 2006
Etymology- The genus references the Lancang Jiang, the local name for the head of the Mekong River. The species name refers to the Zaqu River, which is the upper reaches of the Mekong.
Middle Jurassic
Middle Dapuka Group, Dabuka, Qamdo County, Tibet, China
Material- (~15 m) specimen including skull, mandible, twelve teeth and limb elements
specimen (Fang et al., 2006)
Comments- Though usually believed to be a preliminary name for Datousaurus (e.g. Olshevsky, 1991), "Lancangosaurus" was first reported by Zhao (1980) in relation to a Dapuka specimen, not the Xiashaximiao Datousaurus. Listed characters are large skull, large spatulate teeth which decrease gradually in size posteriorly, a thick mandible and robust limbs. Dong et al. (1983) believed the teeth were congeneric with those from the Wujiaba Quarry of the Shangshaximiao Formation, which they described as belonging to Omeisaurus junghsiensis and O. fuxiensis. Zhao (1985) figures teeth in situ, though the photograph is unclear. Note Olshevsky (1991) switched the authorship for the variants "Lancanjiangosaurus" and "Lancangjiangosaurus". Glut (1997) incorrectly listed it as being Late Jurassic in age. Fang et al. (2006) note additional material from lower in the same formation. Given the etymology, either "Lancangosaurus" or "Lancangjiangosaurus" would be the most accurate names.
Relationships- "Lancanjiangosaurus" was stated by Zhao (1983) to be a bothrosauropodoid, in which he includes spatulate-toothed taxa like camarasaurids and brachiosaurids. Zhao (1985) notes it is a sauropod similar to Cetiosaurus. Chure and McIntosh (1989) listed it as a cetiosaurid, as does Olshevsky (1991) provisionally, while Lambert (1990) listed it as a brachiosaurid. Glut (1997) merely referred it to Sauropoda incertae sedis. Most recently, Fang et al. (2006) place it in Cetiosauridae. The known characters are found in both basal eusauropods like Omeisaurus and camarasaurids, though the age, locality and Zhao's opinion all favor the former identification. Whether Dong et al. are correct in placing it close to Omeisaurus is unknown, and for now I recommend keeping it as Eusauropoda incertae sedis.
References- Zhao, 1980. [Mesozoic vertebrate-bearing beds and stratigraphy of northern Xinjinag: Report of Paleontological Expedition to Xinjiang IV.] Memoirs of the Institute of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Palaeoanthropology, Academia Sinica A. 15, 1-119.
Dong, Zhou and Zhang, 1983. [Dinosaurs from the Jurassic of Sichuan]. Palaeontologica Sinica, New Series C. 162(23), 1-136 .
Martin-Rolland, 1999. Les sauropodes chinois [The Chinese sauropods]. Revue Paléobiologie, Genève. 18(1), 287-315.
"Lancangosaurus" Zhao, 1980
"Lancanjiangosaurus" Zhao, 1983
"Lancangjiangosaurus cachuensis" Zhao, 1985
"Lancanjiangosaurus cachuensis" Chure and McIntosh, 1989
"Lancanjiangosaurus cahuensis" Glut, 1997
"Lancanjiangosaurus cashuensis" Martin-Rolland, 1999
"Lanchangjiangosaurus cachuensis" Fang, Zhang, Lu, Han, Zhao and Li, 2006
Etymology- The genus references the Lancang Jiang, the local name for the head of the Mekong River. The species name refers to the Zaqu River, which is the upper reaches of the Mekong.
Middle Jurassic
Middle Dapuka Group, Dabuka, Qamdo County, Tibet, China
Material- (~15 m) specimen including skull, mandible, twelve teeth and limb elements
specimen (Fang et al., 2006)
 |
| Teeth of "Lancangosaurus" (after Zhao, 1985). |
Comments- Though usually believed to be a preliminary name for Datousaurus (e.g. Olshevsky, 1991), "Lancangosaurus" was first reported by Zhao (1980) in relation to a Dapuka specimen, not the Xiashaximiao Datousaurus. Listed characters are large skull, large spatulate teeth which decrease gradually in size posteriorly, a thick mandible and robust limbs. Dong et al. (1983) believed the teeth were congeneric with those from the Wujiaba Quarry of the Shangshaximiao Formation, which they described as belonging to Omeisaurus junghsiensis and O. fuxiensis. Zhao (1985) figures teeth in situ, though the photograph is unclear. Note Olshevsky (1991) switched the authorship for the variants "Lancanjiangosaurus" and "Lancangjiangosaurus". Glut (1997) incorrectly listed it as being Late Jurassic in age. Fang et al. (2006) note additional material from lower in the same formation. Given the etymology, either "Lancangosaurus" or "Lancangjiangosaurus" would be the most accurate names.
Relationships- "Lancanjiangosaurus" was stated by Zhao (1983) to be a bothrosauropodoid, in which he includes spatulate-toothed taxa like camarasaurids and brachiosaurids. Zhao (1985) notes it is a sauropod similar to Cetiosaurus. Chure and McIntosh (1989) listed it as a cetiosaurid, as does Olshevsky (1991) provisionally, while Lambert (1990) listed it as a brachiosaurid. Glut (1997) merely referred it to Sauropoda incertae sedis. Most recently, Fang et al. (2006) place it in Cetiosauridae. The known characters are found in both basal eusauropods like Omeisaurus and camarasaurids, though the age, locality and Zhao's opinion all favor the former identification. Whether Dong et al. are correct in placing it close to Omeisaurus is unknown, and for now I recommend keeping it as Eusauropoda incertae sedis.
References- Zhao, 1980. [Mesozoic vertebrate-bearing beds and stratigraphy of northern Xinjinag: Report of Paleontological Expedition to Xinjiang IV.] Memoirs of the Institute of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Palaeoanthropology, Academia Sinica A. 15, 1-119.
Dong, Zhou and Zhang, 1983. [Dinosaurs from the Jurassic of Sichuan]. Palaeontologica Sinica, New Series C. 162(23), 1-136 .
Martin-Rolland, 1999. Les sauropodes chinois [The Chinese sauropods]. Revue Paléobiologie, Genève. 18(1), 287-315.
"Microdontosaurus" - Zhao's nomina nuda part 3
"Microdontosaurus" Zhao, 1983
"Microdontosaurus dayensis" Zhao, 1985
Etymology- The genus name refers to small teeth, while the species name references the Daye township in Qamdo.
Middle Jurassic
Middle Dapuka Group, Dabuka, Qamdo County, Tibet, China
Material- specimen seemingly including teeth
Comments- As Gilmore (1902) already named an ichthyosaur Microdontosaurus petersonii (currently a junior synonym of Baptanodon discus), Zhao's sauropod will need a new name if it is officially described in the future. Glut (1997) incorrectly dates the species to 1983 and places it in the Late Cretaceous.
Relationships- Stated by Zhao (1983) to be a homalosauropodoid, in which he includes peg-toothed taxa like diplodocoids (including mamenchisaurids in his view) and titanosaurs. Similarly, Zhao (1985) states it is a primitive peg-toothed sauropod. Chure and McIntosh (1989) listed it as a cetiosaurid, Lambert (1990) listed it as a diplodocid, and Olshevsky (1991) as a melanorosaurid. Glut (1997) merely refers it to Sauropoda incertae sedis. Most recently, Fang et al. (2006) place it in Brachiosauridae.
A placement outside of Sauropoda is unlikely for a Middle Jurassic taxon (though not unheard of- see Yunnanosaurus? youngi), suggesting Olshevsky's assignment is incorrect. While traditionally only diplodocoids and titanosaurids were seen as having nonspatulate teeth, they are also found in more basal brachiosaur-grade titanosauriforms and even some basal eusauropods like Shunosaurus. This suggests Fang et al.'s assignment to Brachiosauridae may be most accurate, especially as Zhao is a coauthor while Chure, McIntosh and Lambert have not seen the specimen. Since Brachiosauridae as traditionally conceived is paraphyletic, "Microdontosaurus" is here tentatively assigned to Titanosauriformes incertae sedis.
References- Gilmore, 1902. Discovery of teeth in Baptanodon, an ichthyosaurian from the Jurassic of Wyoming. Science. 16(414), 913-914.
"Microdontosaurus dayensis" Zhao, 1985
Etymology- The genus name refers to small teeth, while the species name references the Daye township in Qamdo.
Middle Jurassic
Middle Dapuka Group, Dabuka, Qamdo County, Tibet, China
Material- specimen seemingly including teeth
Comments- As Gilmore (1902) already named an ichthyosaur Microdontosaurus petersonii (currently a junior synonym of Baptanodon discus), Zhao's sauropod will need a new name if it is officially described in the future. Glut (1997) incorrectly dates the species to 1983 and places it in the Late Cretaceous.
Relationships- Stated by Zhao (1983) to be a homalosauropodoid, in which he includes peg-toothed taxa like diplodocoids (including mamenchisaurids in his view) and titanosaurs. Similarly, Zhao (1985) states it is a primitive peg-toothed sauropod. Chure and McIntosh (1989) listed it as a cetiosaurid, Lambert (1990) listed it as a diplodocid, and Olshevsky (1991) as a melanorosaurid. Glut (1997) merely refers it to Sauropoda incertae sedis. Most recently, Fang et al. (2006) place it in Brachiosauridae.
A placement outside of Sauropoda is unlikely for a Middle Jurassic taxon (though not unheard of- see Yunnanosaurus? youngi), suggesting Olshevsky's assignment is incorrect. While traditionally only diplodocoids and titanosaurids were seen as having nonspatulate teeth, they are also found in more basal brachiosaur-grade titanosauriforms and even some basal eusauropods like Shunosaurus. This suggests Fang et al.'s assignment to Brachiosauridae may be most accurate, especially as Zhao is a coauthor while Chure, McIntosh and Lambert have not seen the specimen. Since Brachiosauridae as traditionally conceived is paraphyletic, "Microdontosaurus" is here tentatively assigned to Titanosauriformes incertae sedis.
References- Gilmore, 1902. Discovery of teeth in Baptanodon, an ichthyosaurian from the Jurassic of Wyoming. Science. 16(414), 913-914.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
The Sauropodomorph Database Blog? Yates' analysis
This will be a crazy month for the Theropod Database Blog, with a comparative lack of theropods. As part of my study of "Dachongosaurus", I examined Yates' (2007) matrix to see which characters it had. That analysis has been modified and added to by several authors, so I combined all of these changes to make the new version as most recently published. This involved-
Adding the 8 characters from the Glacialisaurus description (Smith and Pol, 2007).
Adding the 17 characters from the Chromogisaurus description (Ezcurra, 2010), modifying 215 and 221 (but not 245, 251 or 256), and changing many codings for basal taxa according to that paper.
Changing a few character descriptions and codings (mostly for Yunnanosaurus' skull and Tazoudasaurus' redescription) from Yates et al. (2010). This meant changing a miscoded state for Seitaad too.
Changing Anchisaurus' codings from Yates (2010).
Adding Aardonyx (Yates et al., 2010), Adeopapposaurus (Sertich and Loewen, 2010), Chromogisaurus (Ezcurra, 2010), Glacialisaurus (Smith and Pol, 2007), Gryponyx (Yates et al., 2010), Ignavusaurus (Knoll, 2010), herrerasaurid MACN PV-18649a (Ezcurra, 2010), Panphagia (Ezcurra, 2010) and Seitaad (Sertich and Loewen, 2010).
Because these have never been combined before, and could lead to a unique topology, I ran the matrix in PAUP. The strict consensus is-
|--Euparkeria
`--+--Crurotarsi
`--+--Marasuchus
`--+--Silesaurus
`--Dinosauria
|--Ornithischia
`--Saurischia
|--Herrerasauridae
| |--Herrerasaurus
| |--MACN PV-18649a
| `--Staurikosaurus
`--Eusaurischia
|--Theropoda
| |--Chindesaurus
| `--+--Eoraptor
| `--Avepoda
`--Sauropodomorpha
|--Agnosphitys
|--Guaibasaurus
|--Panphagia
|--+--Chromogisaurus
| `--Saturnalia
`--+--Thecodontosaurus
|--Pantydraco
`--+--Efraasia
`--+--Ignavusaurus
`--+--Plateosauravus
`--+--Ruehleia
`--Plateosauria
|--Prosauropoda/Plateosauridae
| |--Unaysaurus
| `--+--Sellosaurus
| `--+--Gresslyosaurus
| `--Plateosaurus
`--Massopoda
|--Riojasauridae
| |--Eucnemesaurus
| `--Riojasaurus
`--+--Massospondylidae
| |--+--Coloradisaurus
| | `--+--Lufengosaurus
| | `--Glacialisaurus
| `--+--Gryponyx
| `--+--Massospondylus
| `--+--Adeopapposaurus
| `--Seitaad
`--+--Yunnanosaurus
`--+--Jingshanosaurus
`--Anchisauria
|--Anchisaurus
`--+--Aardonyx
`--+*-Camelotia
|--Melanorosaurus
`--Sauropoda
|--Blikanasaurus
`--+--+--Antetonitrus
| `--Lessemsaurus
`--+--Gongxianosaurus
`--Gravisauria
|--Tazoudasaurus
`--+--Vulcanodon
`--+--Isanosaurus
`--Eusauropoda
|--+--Barapasaurus
| `--Patagosaurus
`--+--Shunosaurus
`--+--+--Omeisaurus
| `--Mamenchisaurus
`--+--Cetiosaurus
`--Neosauropoda
Camelotia is outside Gongxianosaurus+Gravisauria.
Unlike Ezcurra's matrix, guaibasaurids aren't necessarily monophyletic (and note pruning Agnosphitys or Panphagia does not make them monophyletic), but are all sauropodomorphs unlike Yates' original. Also like Ezcurra but unlike Yates, Eoraptor is sister to Avepoda.
In Ignavusaurus' description, it was basal to Efraasia, but here it's more derived. Unlike Yates et al. (2010) but like Yates (2004), Gryponyx is a massospondylid, and unlike Sertich and Loewen (2010) the Lufengosaurus clade are also massospondylids. Yunnanosaurus is now basal to Jingshanosaurus.
Adding the 8 characters from the Glacialisaurus description (Smith and Pol, 2007).
Adding the 17 characters from the Chromogisaurus description (Ezcurra, 2010), modifying 215 and 221 (but not 245, 251 or 256), and changing many codings for basal taxa according to that paper.
Changing a few character descriptions and codings (mostly for Yunnanosaurus' skull and Tazoudasaurus' redescription) from Yates et al. (2010). This meant changing a miscoded state for Seitaad too.
Changing Anchisaurus' codings from Yates (2010).
Adding Aardonyx (Yates et al., 2010), Adeopapposaurus (Sertich and Loewen, 2010), Chromogisaurus (Ezcurra, 2010), Glacialisaurus (Smith and Pol, 2007), Gryponyx (Yates et al., 2010), Ignavusaurus (Knoll, 2010), herrerasaurid MACN PV-18649a (Ezcurra, 2010), Panphagia (Ezcurra, 2010) and Seitaad (Sertich and Loewen, 2010).
Because these have never been combined before, and could lead to a unique topology, I ran the matrix in PAUP. The strict consensus is-
|--Euparkeria
`--+--Crurotarsi
`--+--Marasuchus
`--+--Silesaurus
`--Dinosauria
|--Ornithischia
`--Saurischia
|--Herrerasauridae
| |--Herrerasaurus
| |--MACN PV-18649a
| `--Staurikosaurus
`--Eusaurischia
|--Theropoda
| |--Chindesaurus
| `--+--Eoraptor
| `--Avepoda
`--Sauropodomorpha
|--Agnosphitys
|--Guaibasaurus
|--Panphagia
|--+--Chromogisaurus
| `--Saturnalia
`--+--Thecodontosaurus
|--Pantydraco
`--+--Efraasia
`--+--Ignavusaurus
`--+--Plateosauravus
`--+--Ruehleia
`--Plateosauria
|--Prosauropoda/Plateosauridae
| |--Unaysaurus
| `--+--Sellosaurus
| `--+--Gresslyosaurus
| `--Plateosaurus
`--Massopoda
|--Riojasauridae
| |--Eucnemesaurus
| `--Riojasaurus
`--+--Massospondylidae
| |--+--Coloradisaurus
| | `--+--Lufengosaurus
| | `--Glacialisaurus
| `--+--Gryponyx
| `--+--Massospondylus
| `--+--Adeopapposaurus
| `--Seitaad
`--+--Yunnanosaurus
`--+--Jingshanosaurus
`--Anchisauria
|--Anchisaurus
`--+--Aardonyx
`--+*-Camelotia
|--Melanorosaurus
`--Sauropoda
|--Blikanasaurus
`--+--+--Antetonitrus
| `--Lessemsaurus
`--+--Gongxianosaurus
`--Gravisauria
|--Tazoudasaurus
`--+--Vulcanodon
`--+--Isanosaurus
`--Eusauropoda
|--+--Barapasaurus
| `--Patagosaurus
`--+--Shunosaurus
`--+--+--Omeisaurus
| `--Mamenchisaurus
`--+--Cetiosaurus
`--Neosauropoda
Camelotia is outside Gongxianosaurus+Gravisauria.
Unlike Ezcurra's matrix, guaibasaurids aren't necessarily monophyletic (and note pruning Agnosphitys or Panphagia does not make them monophyletic), but are all sauropodomorphs unlike Yates' original. Also like Ezcurra but unlike Yates, Eoraptor is sister to Avepoda.
In Ignavusaurus' description, it was basal to Efraasia, but here it's more derived. Unlike Yates et al. (2010) but like Yates (2004), Gryponyx is a massospondylid, and unlike Sertich and Loewen (2010) the Lufengosaurus clade are also massospondylids. Yunnanosaurus is now basal to Jingshanosaurus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)