2015 SVPCA abstract supports troodontid-bird clade

Nice to get confirmation
for a subset of the large reptile tree in a SVPCA poster (Brougham 2015).

From the Brougham results:
“The modified matrix strongly supports a Troodontidae + Avialae clade rather than a monophyletic Deinonychosauria, a topology remarkably convergent on that seen in modified Godefroit phylogeny, in which Aurornis, Eosinopteryx and the Tiaojishan paravians form a sister clade to Anchiornis and more derived avialans, the two of which in turn form a sister clade to Troodontidae.”

Figure 1. Basal theropod subset of the large reptile tree showing troodontids basal to birds and separate from dromaeosaurs.

Figure 1. Basal theropod subset of the large reptile tree showing troodontids (light red) basal to birds (red) and separate from dromaeosaurs (white).

Brougham T 2015. Multi-matrix analysis of new Chinese feathered dinosaurs supports troodontid-bird clade. researchgate.net/publication/280728942

2 thoughts on “2015 SVPCA abstract supports troodontid-bird clade

  1. Of your “troodontids”, Buitreraptor has never been suggested to be one, being an unenlagiine dromaeosaurid or rarely bird (Agnolin and Novas, 2013). Jinfengopteryx, Anchiornis, Aurornis, Eosinopteryx and Xiaotingia have been recovered as basal troodontids by some, but also as basal birds, and even basal paravians (Jinfengopteryx- Foth et al., 2014) or dromaeosaurids (Xiaotingia- Senter et al., 2012). You also recover the most birdlike dromaeosaurids as compsognathids/tyrannosauroids and a therizinosaur.

    There was a good quote on a recent Skeptoid podcast- “Focusing on minutiae like lenses and gyroscopic attitude indicators, and ignoring the much larger and more obvious evidence, is a hallmark of conspiratorial thinking.” This might get this comment blocked, but it shows I’m not unique in claiming attention only to miscoded characters or misplaced taxa is misguided, while it’s your broader issues of poorly formed and unordered characters, relying on DGS, not including opposing evidence, etc. that keep your analysis from shining.

  2. The take-away from your point, I presume, is there is no consensus on the nesting of the taxa you list. The quote from Skeptoid is cryptic. Not sure of your point. Despite the criticisms you list, we still need to find the poorly nested taxa.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.