The last common ancestor of all dinosaurs in the LRT: ?Buriolestes

Müller et al. 2018
describe a new dinosaur skeleton they attribute to Buriolestes shultzi (Cabreria et al. 2016, ULBRA-PVT280, Figs. 2, 3). In the large reptile tree (LRT, 2015 taxa; subset Fig. 1) the holotype now nests at the base of the Phytodinosauria. The referred specimen is different enough to nest between the herrerasaurs and all other dinosaurs. This, of course, removes herrerasaurs from the definition of the Dinosauria (Passer + Triceratops, their last common ancestor (= CAPPA/UFSM 0035) and all descendants).

Figure 1. Subset of the LRT including the new specimen of Buriolestes (CAPPA/UFSM 0035) nesting at the base of all dinosaurs.

Figure 1. Subset of the LRT including the new specimen of Buriolestes (CAPPA/UFSM 0035) nesting at the base of all dinosaurs.

 

Buriolestes schultzi (Cabreria et al. 2016; Late Triassic, Carnian; 230mya) was originally and later (Müller et al. 2018) considered a carnivorous sauropodomorph, but here two specimens nest as the basalmost dinosaur (CAPPA/UFSM 0035) and the basalmost phytodinosaur (ULBRA-PVT280).

Figure 2. The two skulls attributed to Buriolestes (holotype on the right). The one on the left nests as the basalmost dinosaur, basal to theropods and phytodinosaurs.

Figure 2. The two skulls attributed to Buriolestes (holotype on the right). The one on the left nests as the basalmost dinosaur, basal to theropods and phytodinosaurs. It should have a distinct name.

All cladograms agree that Buriolestes
is a very basal dinosaur. Taxon exclusion changes the tree topology of competing cladograms. The broad autapomorphic ‘eyebrow’ of the CAPPA specimen indicates it is a derived trait in this Late Triassic representative of an earlier genesis.

Figure 3. Herrerasaurus, Buriolestes and Tawa to scale.

Figure 3. Herrerasaurus, Buriolestes and Tawa to scale.

The Müller et al. cladogram
combined both specimens attributed to Buriolestes (never a good idea, but it happens all the time). The Müller et al. cladogram excluded a long list of basal bipedal crocodylomorpha, but did include Lewisuchus. It excluded the archosaur outgroups PVL 4597Turfanosuchus and Decuriasuchus. The Müller et al. cladogram nested Ornithischia basal to Saurischia (= Herrerasauridae + Agnophitys, Eodromaeus, Daemonosaurus + Theropoda + Sauropodomorpha) with Buriolestes nesting between Eoraptor and Panphagia. The CAPPA specimen of Buriolestes is also a sister to the basalmost theropod, Tawa (Fig. 3)… and not far from the other basal archosaur, Junggarsuchus (Fig. 4).

Figure 8. The CAPPA specimen of Buriolestes compared to the more primitive Junggarsuchus, basal to the other branch of archosaurs, the crocs.

Figure 4. The CAPPA specimen of Buriolestes compared to Junggarsuchus, basal to the other branch of archosaurs, the crocs.

References
Cabreira SF et al. (13 co-authors) 2016. A unique Late Triassic dinosauromorph assemblage reveals dinosaur ancestral anatomy and diet. Current Biology (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.09.040
Müller RT et al. (5 co-authors 2018. Early evolution of sauropodomorphs: anatomy and phylogenetic relationships of a remarkably well-preserved dinosaur from the Upper Triassic of southern Brazil. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, zly009 (advance online publication) doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zly009

Advertisements

Theropods in the LRT with suggested nomenclature

Figure 1. Lately the two clades based on two specimens of Compsognathus (one much larger than the other) have merged recently.

Figure 1. Lately the two clades based on two specimens of Compsognathus (one much larger than the other) have merged recently. Names posted here are in use traditionally, but with different definitions in some cases.

Just a moment to update
the theropod subset of the large reptile tree (LRT, 1151 taxa). Given the present taxon list, this is the order they fall into using the generalized characters used throughout the LRT. Validation is required for all such first-time proposals. The names applied here are used in traditional studies, but often not following previous definitions or clade memberships.

The large and small Compsognathus specimens
are closely related, but not congeneric (Fig. 2).

Figure 1. The large (from Peyer 2006) and small Compsognathus specimens to scale. Several different traits nest these next to one another, but at the bases of two sister clades. Note the differences in the forelimb and skull reconstructions here. There may be an external mandibular fenestra. Hard to tell with the medial view and shifting bones.

Figure 2. The large (from Peyer 2006) and small Compsognathus specimens to scale. Several different traits nest these next to one another, but at the bases of two sister clades. Note the differences in the forelimb and skull reconstructions here. There may be an external mandibular fenestra. Hard to tell with the medial view and shifting bones.

Does anyone see
in this list two ‘related’ taxa that do not resemble one another more so than any other taxon? If so, that needs to be noted and repaired.

Go back far enough in dinosaur ancestry and you come to: Heleosaurus

With our never-ending fascination with dinosaurs
it’s interesting to list some of the taxa in their deep, deep!, deep!! ancestry. One such ancestor is Heleosaurus (Fig. 1; Broom 1907; Middle Permian ~270 mya, ~30 cm snout to vent length), the first known basal prodiapsid, the clade the includes diapsids (sans lepidosaurs, which are unrelated but share the same skull topology by convergence).

Figure 1. Heleosaurus is closer to the main lineage of dinosaurs. It retained canine fangs.

Figure 1. Heleosaurus is close to the main lineage of dinosaurs. It retained canine fangs. Note the squamosal distinct from the quadratojugal, as in Nikkasaurus. Also note the continuing lacrimal contact with the naris, as in Protorothyris.

But first
I want to discuss a derived Heleosaurus cousin, Nikkasaurus (Ivahnenko 2000; Fig. 2), also one of the most basal prodiapsids.

It is only by coincidence
that Ivahnenko labeled Nikkasaurus one of his ‘Dinomorpha,’ a clade name ignored by other authors. Wikipedia considers Nikkasaurus one of the Therapsida and possibly a relic of a more ancient stage of therapsid development. Like Heleosaurus, Nikkasaurus had a single synapsid-like lateral temporal fenestra. Only their nesting outside of that clade and basal to the clade Diapsida in the LRT tell us what they really are. Most of the time, as you know, we can tell what a taxon is simply by looking at it. In this case, as in only a few others, we cannot do so readily.

Figure 1. Nikkasaurus, one of the most primitive prodiapsids, direct but ancient ancestors of dinosaurs.

Figure 2. Nikkasaurus, one of the most primitive prodiapsids, direct but ancient ancestors of dinosaurs.

Nikkasaurus tatarinovi (Ivahnenko 2000) Middle Permian was a tiny basal prodiapsid with a large orbit. It retained a large quadratojugal. The fossil is missing the squamosal. Others mistakenly considered the quadratojugal the squamosal, as in therapsids. That’s an easy mistake to make. Compare this bone to the QJ in Heleosaurus (Fig. 1), another prodiapsid. Nikkasaurus has small sharp teeth and no canine fang. Nikkasaurus is a sister to Mycterosaurus. They both share a large orbit and fairly long snout. What appears to be a retroarticular process may be something else awaiting inspection in the actual fossil. Based on all other data points, I don’t trust that post-dentary data. It doesn’t match the in situ figure.

Distinct from other prodiapsids,
the Nikkasaurus, Mycerosaurus and Mesenosaurus maxilla extended dorsally, overlapping the lacrimal and contacting the nasal, as it does in Dimetrodon and basal therapsids like Hipposaurus and Stenocybus. This trait tends to be homoplastic / convergent in all derived taxa, but the timing differs in separate clades.

Figure 1. Nikkasaurus and what little is known of its postcrania. Above, in situ. Below, tentative reconstruction. If anyone has a picture of the fossil itself, please send it.

Figure 2. Nikkasaurus and what little is known of its postcrania. Above, in situ. Below, tentative reconstruction. If anyone has a picture of the fossil itself, please send it. Note the posterior mandible mismatch in the purported retroarticular process. I suspect the process is not there.

And finally we come back to Heleosaurus.
Slightly closer to the lineage of dinosaurs is the slightly more basal prodiapsid, Heleosaurus (Fig. 2), which retained canine fangs, had a more typical posterior mandible and retained a lacrimal / naris contact. This naris trait was retained by Petrolacosaurus, Eudibamus, Spinoaequalis and other basal diapsids (archosauromorpha with both upper and lateral temporal fenestra ). The maxilla did not rise again to cut off lacrimal contact with the naris in the ancestry of dinosaurs until the small Youngina specimens huddled together, SAM K 7710 and every more derived taxon thereafter, up to and including dinos.

References
Broom R 1907. On some new fossil reptiles from the Karroo beds of Victoria West, South Africa. Transactions of the South African Philosophical Society 18:31–42.
Ivahnenko MF 2000. 
Cranial morphology and evolution of Permian Dinomorpha (Eotherapsida) of eastern Europe. Paleontological Journal 42(9):859-995. DOI: 10.1134/S0031030108090013

Nesting Triceratops and its juvenile

Updated May 26 with suggestions from C. Collinson on skull sutures.
Updated again with a new reconstruction of the missing juvenile Triceratops face. 

No surprises here. 

Figure 1. Triceratops mount from an auction house. Pectoral girdle repaired. Skull colorized. Dorsal view comes from another specimen - always a dangerous proposition.

Figure 1. Triceratops mount from an auction house. Pectoral girdle repaired. Skull colorized. Dorsal view comes from another specimen – always a dangerous proposition.

Triceratops (Fig. 1, Marsh 1889) and its juvenile (Fig. 2) nest together with Yinlong downsi (Xu et al. 2006) Late Jurassic ~150 mya, ~1.2 m in length; Fig. 3) a primitive bipedal hornless pro-ceratopsian ornithischian, dinosaur, archosaur, archosauriform, archosauromorph, reptile. The large reptile tree is now up to 678 taxa.

Figure 2. Juvenile Triceratops compared to subadult Triceratops (in shadow).

Figure 2. Juvenile Triceratops compared to subadult Triceratops (in shadow).

A YouTube video, Dinosaurs Decoded, shows Mark Goodwin reassembling the juvenile Triceratops skull. Click here to watch.

Figure 2b. Original figure from Goodwin et al. of juvenile Triceratops, but mandible and squamosal scale bars don't match. Then compared to an adult. Then reconstructed based on new mandible/squamosal proportions based on text measurements. Evidently the juvenile Trike had a longer rostrum than Goodwin thought.

Figure 2b. Original figure from Goodwin et al. of juvenile Triceratops, but mandible and squamosal scale bars don’t match. Then compared to an adult. Then reconstructed based on new mandible/squamosal proportions based on text measurements. Evidently the juvenile Trike had a longer rostrum than Goodwin thought.

Liike all ornithischians, 
ceratopsians fuse the postfrontal to the frontal. However, in Yinlong, cracks (sutures?) appear where the postfrontal would have appeared and where the orbital horns ultimately appeared. So are the postorbital horns actually derived from postfrontal buds? We won’t know until we can determine a suture from a crack in the ontogenetically youngest and phylogenetically most primiitive specimens. It is also possible that, like the nasal horn, the orbital horns arose from novel ossificatiions that ultimately fused to the underlying bone.

Figure 3. Yinlong skull showing possible postfrontal in the position of the future orbit horns.

Figure 3. Yinlong skull showing possible postfrontal in the position of the future orbit horns.

Another juvenile nests with its adult counterpart!
Several workers and readers have pointed to studies (sorry, I don’t have the reference here) in which juveniles did NOT nest with adults in morphological analysis. Notably these samples  (as I recall…) came from taxa that metamorphosed during ontogeny, like caterpillars > butterflies and tadpoles > frogs.

In another argument, perhaps reflecting a majority view, a peerJ reviewer expressed concern/fear/trepidation that: – “Finally, I don’t know that a phylogenetic analysis including juvenile specimens alongside adult specimens is going to give you a particularly trustworthy result.“ citing no references, but noting that juvenile hadrosaurs have distinct characters in the skull from adults, which we all know.

Such arguments have been raised whenever I suggested workers include tiny Solnhofen pterosaurs in phylogenetic analyses, especially so since we KNOW that hatchling pterosaurs were virtual copies of adults. Not so with dinosaurs in which the rostrum is shorter and the orbits are larger than in adults. Even with that handicap, the differences, at least in this one case, were not enough to separate adult from juvenile Triceratops, given the present taxon list, which, frankly has no other ceratopsians.

References

Goodwin MB, Clemens WA, Horner JR and Padian K 2006. The smallest known Triceratops skull: new observations on ceratopsid cranial anatomy and ontogeny. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 26(1): 103-112.Lambe LM 1902. New genera and species from the Belly River Series (mid-Cretaceous), Geological Survey of Canada Contributions to Canadian Palaeontology 3(2):25-81
Marsh OC 1898. New species of Ceratopsia. Am J Sci, series 4 6: 92.
Xu X, Forster CA, Clark J M and Mo J 2006. A basal ceratopsian with transitional features from the Late Jurassic of northwestern China. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. First Cite Early Online Publishing. online pdf

 

wiki/Yinlong 
wiki/Triceratops

 

 

 

Tyrannosaurus ancestors to scale

Ornitholestes now nests nearby.
The CNJ7 specimen of Compsognathus (Fig. 0) is closer to the base of the Tyrannosaurus clade.

Figure 0. Taxa ancestral to tyrannosaurs beginning with the CNJ7 specimen of Compsognathus.

Figure 0. Taxa ancestral to tyrannosaurs beginning with the CNJ7 specimen of Compsognathus.

At odds with other published trees
the large reptile tree finds the following taxa in the clade of, and ancestral to, Tyrannosaurus, everyone’s favorite dinosaur.

Figure 1. The following taxa nest in the clade of Tyrannosaurus at present: Gorgosaurus, Alioramus, Zhenyuanlong, Tinayuraptor and Ornitholestes.

Figure 1. The following taxa nest in the clade of Tyrannosaurus at present: Gorgosaurus, Alioramus, Zhenyuanlong, Tinayuraptor and Ornitholestes. Click to enlarge. There appears to be a linkage from Zhenyuanlong to T-rex in the shape of the orbit and relatively short rostrum.

Seems pretty obvious.
even when you look at that very distinctive hourglass-shaped quadratojugal. Not sure why others have missed this.

We looked at traditional contenders,
now almost all nesting with similarly long-snouted spinosaurs here and here. None have a similar QJ.

And, as we learned earlier…
Ornitholestes nests basal to the very bird-like Microraptor and Sinornithosaurus.

The Theropoda: just a few (albeit heretical) changes to traditional trees

Adding taxa
is a method I have supported in order to discover taxonomic relationships among reptiles. The large reptile tree (theropod subset in Fig. 1) has now passed 650 taxa. The theropod subset has been considered at odds with traditional trees. But when you really look at it, maybe, not so much.

Figure 1. Theropod subset of the large reptile tree. Unresolved clades are resolved in heuristic analyses. Here traditional clades are named. A few taxa nest somewhere other than their traditional nestings here. Click to slightly enlarge.

Figure 1. Theropod subset of the large reptile tree. Unresolved clades are resolved in heuristic analyses. Those are due to incomplete skeletons. Here traditional clades are named. A few taxa nest somewhere other than their traditional nestings here. Click to slightly enlarge.

I added four more theropods
to the large reptile tree and applied traditional names to various clades (Fig. 1). Those additions and all scoring corrections did not change the overall tree topology.

Tradition is upheld overall here
as the major clades: 1. Neotheropoda; 2. Avetheropoda/Averostra; 3; Tetanurae; 4. Maniraptora; 5. Paraves; 6. Deinonychosauria/Eumaniraptora; 7. Troodontidae; and 8. Birds/Aves appear in their traditional order and with most of their traditional taxa.

Heresy is introduced here

  1. A clade between Tawa and Coelophysis includes Marasuchus, Segisaurus and Procompsognathus, taxa too often omitted from traditional theropod trees.
  2. Several former compsognathids, including Juravenator, Sinosauropteryx, now nest as derived maniraptors close to Limusaurus + Khaan and another former compsognathid, Sinocalliopteryx, now nests with spinosaurs.
  3. Several former tyrannosauroids, including Proceratorsaurus, Dilong, Guanlong and Xiongguanlong now nest with spinosaurs.
  4. A former ornithomimid, Deinocheirus, now nests with spinosaurs.
  5. Several former dromaeosaurs, including Microraptor, Sinornithosaurus, Zhenyuanlong and Tianyuraptor now nest with tyrannosauroids.
  6. A former bird/dromaeosaur, Rahonavis now nests with basal therizinosaurs.
  7. A former ceratosaur, Limusaurus, now nests with oviraptors.
  8. Eotyrannus and Tanycolagreus nest together as basal Paraves.

The following taxa do not belong in theropod studies
because they are basal phytodinosaurs.

  1. Eodromaeus
  2. Eoraptor
  3. Daemonosaurus
  4. Chilesaurus

The problem for traditional theropod workers is
the above heretical sisters really do look like sisters, both overall and in detail. With 651 nesting opportunities, this is where they found maximum parsimony (the fewest changes to their morphology).

These nestings look like heresies, but they follow prior work

  1. Ornithomimosaurs and maniraptors were both derived from Compsognathidae (Compsognathus) according to Lee et al. 2014.
  2. A series of small troodontids give rise to birds according to Godefroit et al. 2013.
  3. Dilophosaurus nests with Coelophysis according to Sues et al., 2011.
  4. Others I missed? It’s better for everyone when I’m not the first to notice taxonomic similarities.

Added taxa
have, so far, only supported earlier clades from earlier large reptile tree topologies. There have been score changes, but that’s standard operating procedure when adding taxa. It goes to show that a pretty good tree CAN have scoring mistakes. The best tree, of course, has no mistakes.

It is so good to have photo references
to look over when trying to decide what an unidentified or misidentified crumb of bone might represent. I can’t imagine having to buy a ticket to go revisit a fossil every time I needed to see it again. The logistics would prove nightmarish. (You have to realize that NO ONE does this). Remember, no one is an expert on a fossil the moment they first see it. Spending time with data makes you an expert on it. How much of an expert do you need your experts to be?

References
Lee YN, Barsbold R, Currie PJ, Kobayashi Y, Lee HJ, Godefroit P, Escuillié F and Chinzorig T 2014. Resolving the long-standing enigmas of a giant ornithomimosaur Deinocheirus mirificus. Nature 515 (7526): 257–260.
Godefroit P, Cau A, Hu D-Y, Escuillié, Wu, W-H and Dyke G 2013. A Jurassic avialan dinosaur from China resolves the early phylogenetic history of birds. Nature 498 (7454): 359–362.
Sues H-D, Nesbitt SJ, Berman DS and Henrici AC 2011. A late-surviving basal theropod dinosaur from the latest Triassic of North America. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 278 (1723): 3459–3464

Proceratosaurus: another theropod leaves the tyrannosauroids for the spinosauroids

This blogpost
continues a series of prior blogposts featuring the tested removal of taxa traditionally considered to be in the ancestry of Tyrannosaurus. Find those posts here, here, here and here. There were also a few blogposts that added non-traditional taxa to the lineage of tyrannosaurs. Find those here, here and here.

Figure 1. Only the lower 7/8 of the skull of Proceratosaurus is known. Here the skull in siitu, A tracing modified from Tracy Ford. And another tracing by Rauhut et al. 2010 with anterior and occipital views.

Figure 1. Only the lower 7/8 of the skull of Proceratosaurus is known. Here the skull in siitu, A tracing modified from Tracy Ford. And another tracing by Rauhut et al. 2010 with anterior and occipital views. Note the entire skull is concave ventrally, but the maxilla and jugal are both straight.

Proceratosaurus bradleyi
(Middle Jurassic, Bathonian, England, NHM R 4860, Fig. 1) was originally considered another Megalosaurus (Woodward 1910), then identified as a unique taxon, a likely ancestor of a another much larger and more robust horned theropod, Ceratosaurus (von Huene 1926). Those reports were made back in the day when there were very few theropods to compare with one another.

In more recent times,
Proceratosaurus was phylogenetically nested (according to Wikipedia, Angela Milner and the BBC, Rauhut et al. (2010), Loewen et al. (2013) and Brusatte et al. (2015)) as the earliest member of the tyrannosaur lineage (Figs. 2-4).

Figure 3. Theropods from Rauhut et al. 2010. Here Proceratosaurus, Dilong and Guanlong nest with tyrannosaurs.

Figure 2. Theropods from Rauhut et al. 2010. Here Proceratosaurus, Dilong and Guanlong nest with tyrannosaurs, but key taxa are missing.

The question is why do their trees and the large reptile tree differ?
The answer could be (once again) due to taxon exclusion and tradition. The shift in nestings could be due to the lack of more attractive sister taxa in traditional tyrannosaur studies. The large reptile tree includes those more attractive sister taxa. But that is not the complete answer in every case.

Figure 4. Tyrannosaurs from Brusatte et al. 2013. Some taxa nest elsewhere in the large reptile tree. Others are missing from this tree.

Figure 3. Tyrannosaurs from Brusatte et al. 2013. Some taxa nest elsewhere in the large reptile tree. Others are missing from this tree. Click to enlarge.

Could it be scoring?
I have not checked the scores and matrices in other studies. I do know that the sisters in the large reptile tree do share long lists of character traits, but D-shaped premaxillary teeth (often touted as a key trait restricted to tyrannosaurs) are not among the traits listed there. Did Spinosaurus and Suchomimus also have D-shaped premaxillary teeth? I don’t know. If not, could that trait be in their relatively short-snouted ancestors by convergence? At this point the answer is, apparently so.

Rauhut (2010 reported, “As close relationships of Proceratosaurus with several of the clades included in this analysis (coelophysoids, spinosauroids, and maniraptorans) have never been proposed previously, these clades were collapsed [individually] into [a] single operational taxonomic unit[s] (OTU[s]).” 

That’s a problem
as the large reptile tree found Proceratosaurus to nest closest to basalmost spinosauroids (former tyrannosauroids). Now do you see why it is SO important NOT to employ suprageneric taxa — ever! It is possible that Rauhut et al. (and those that followed) created their own problems by creating suprageneric taxa where they should not have done so. In Science you have to be open to any and all answers, without bias or a priori assumptions wherever practicable and possible. That’s why it is so convenient to start with the large gamut of possibilities provided by the large reptile tree (now 647 taxa and growing).

Figure 5. Theropods from Loewen et al. with pertinent taxa highlighted.

Figure 4. Theropods from Loewen et al. with pertinent taxa highlighted.

Proceratosaurus was added
to the large reptile tree (subset in Fig. 5) and it did not nest with tyrannosaurs, but with smaller Early Cretaceous taxa that traditionally nest with tyrannosaurs, but now nest with spinosaurs. Everyone agrees that Proceratosaurus nests with Guanlong and Dilong. Everyone else agrees that these three nested with tyrannosaurs (Figs. 2-4). So, I am the only unorthodox heretic at present.

Figure 2. The Dinosauria subset of the large reptile tree as of February 5, 2016. Here Proceratosaurus nests with several former long-snouted tyrannosaurs now closer to spinosaurs and allosaurs.

Figure 5. The Dinosauria subset of the large reptile tree as of February 5, 2016. Here Proceratosaurus nests with several former long-snouted tyrannosaurs now closer to spinosaurs and allosaurs.

The large reptile tree
provides ancestral taxa that share more traits (see below) with Late Cretaceous tyrannosaurs than the traditional putative Jurassic and Early Cretaceous candidates provided by the authors listed in the references. I promote these recovered candidates so they will be tested by others, as I have tested their candidate taxa.

Without a doubt,
the Late Cretaceous tyrannosaurs are all monophyletic. The question is, which taxa phylogenetically preceded them in the Early Cretaceous and Jurassic? Note that none of the taxon lists in any of the studies totally match one another. On the other hand, all of the studies are in general agreement. However, the recovered topologies don’t exactly match one another. And so the game is afoot.

Getting back to Proceratosaurus
Take a look at its sister on the allosaur branch in the large reptile tree: it’s Ceratosaurus. So maybe von Huene (1926) was on to something… or he was lucky.

Basic traits that Proceratosaurus, Guanlong and Dilong
share with Sinocalliopteryx, Deinocheirus and the spinosaurs.

  1. Long, low rostrum
  2. Sometimes smaller premaxillary teeth vs. maxillary teeth
  3. Tall orbit
  4. Premaxillary postero-lateral processes that may be present due only to the down tip of the naris.
  5. Ventral border of elongate naris formed by premaxilla + nasal
  6. Long, strongly recurved maxillary teeth
  7. Majority coverage of the quadrate by the squamosal and quadratojugal.
  8. Often, but not always, a nasal median crest.
  9. Often, but not always, a descending posterior skull relative to the maxilla

Given that
Sinocalliopteryx and Dilong had primitive feathers, all (except perhaps the giants) probably shared that rarely preserved trait. Given that the above nine traits are all skull traits, it is likely that this clade was trending toward a specific feeding niche, in this case, an aquatic one.

Someday this will all come together. 

References
Brusatte SL and Carr TD 2016. The phylogeny and evolutionary history of tyrannosauroid dinosaurs. Nature, Scientifice Reports 6 (8 pages), 20252; doi: 10.1038/srep20252.
Loewen MA, Irmis RB, Sertich JJW, Currie PJ, Sampson SD 2013. Tyrant Dinosaur Evolution Tracks the Rise and Fall of Late Cretaceous Oceans. PLoS ONE 8(11): e79420. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0079420
Rauhut OWM, Milner AC and Moore-Fay S 2010. Cranial osteology and phylogenetic position of the theropod dinosaur Proceratosaurus bradleyi(Woodward, 1910) from the Middle Jurassic of England. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, published online before print November 2009. doi:10.1111/j.1096-3642.2009.00591
von Huene F 1932. Die fossile Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihre Entwicklung und Geschichte. Monographien zur Geologie und Palaeontologie (Serie 1), 4: 1–361.
Woodward AS 1910. On a Skull of Megalosaurus from the Great Oolite of Minchinhampton (Gloucestershire). Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society 66: 111–115.