New phylogeny of Stegosauria

A few problems here.
Raven and Maidment 2017 have produced a phylogeny of the clade Stegosauria (Fig. 1). Unfortunately it splits stegosaur proximal outgroups (in the large reptile tree (LRT, subset in Fig. 2) from stegosaurs. It splits stem or basal ankylosaurs from derived ankylosaurs. And it supports a clade, the Thyreophora, that was found to be paraphyletic in the LRT. Finally, it nests Laquintasaurus with Scutellosaurus, contra the LRT.

Figure 1. Phylogeny of Stegosauria according to Ravena and Maidment 2017. Yellow/green taxa are stegosaurs and their ancestors in the LRT. Gray taxa are nodosaurs and ankylosaurs. Blue taxon is a basal ceratopsian. Magenta taxon is lost. The LRT nests stegosaurs apart from ankylosaurs, thus the Thyreophora is paraphyletic and invalid.

Figure 1. Phylogeny of Stegosauria according to Ravena and Maidment 2017. Yellow/green taxa are stegosaurs and their ancestors in the LRT. Gray taxa are nodosaurs and ankylosaurs. Blue taxon is a basal ceratopsian. Magenta taxon is lost. The LRT nests stegosaurs apart from ankylosaurs, thus the Thyreophora is paraphyletic and invalid.

Raven and Maidment appear to have chosen outgroups
for Stegosauria instead of letting a larger gamut analysis choose them. So, once again, taxon exclusion lessens the effectiveness of and confidence in a hypothesis.

Figure 2. Phytodinosauria with a focus on Stegosauria (yellow green).

Figure 2. Subset of the LRT: Phytodinosauria with a focus on Stegosauria (yellow green).

References
Raven TJ and Maidment SCR 2017. A new phylogeny of Stegosauria (Dinosauria, Ornithischia). Palaeontology 2017:1–8.
Barrett PM, Butler RJ, Mundil R, Scheyer TM, Irmis RB, Sánchez-Villagra MR (2014) A palaeoequatorial Ornithischian and new constraints on early dinosaur diversification. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 281(1791): 20141147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1147

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “New phylogeny of Stegosauria

  1. Raven and Maidment appear to have chosen outgroups
    for Stegosauria instead of letting a larger gamut analysis choose them. So, once again, taxon exclusion lessens the effectiveness of and confidence in a hypothesis.

    And once again you have complete confidence that your character sample is large enough to give a reasonably correct tree no matter what taxa you add.

    You should test that hypothesis… by adding characters.

  2. The hypothesis has already been tested. More characters are like having so much money you’ll need spend it all in a lifetime. Enough characters are present to lump and separate all included taxa. And sufficient to handle who knows how many new taxa?

    If you don’t remember how your hypothesis has been tested, all you have to do is reduced any subset of the LRT to a small number of taxa and keep the large number o characters.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s