HOME | DD
Albertonykus β Walking with Phylogeny
#arthropods #dinosaurs #fish #mammals #reptiles #phylogeny #walkingwithdinosaurs #walkingwith #walkingwithmonsters #synapsids #walkingwithbeasts
Published: 2016-02-09 04:14:17 +0000 UTC; Views: 1670; Favourites: 24; Downloads: 29
Redirect to original
Description
A phylogeny of animals featured in the Walking with... series. Requested by , who also provided the list of taxa for me to include.Related content
Comments: 42
Not incontrovertibly. For instance, Halliday et al. (2015) found them to be paraphyletic with respect to Placentalia. Others have recovered them as stem-placentals as well.
π: 0 β©: 0
You're very welcome !
π: 0 β©: 0
Where's Rhamphorhynchus? It was in the list I sent you.
π: 0 β©: 1
Pfft. Doing this as quickly as I did, I was surprised I seemingly hadn't missed anything. It's been added.
π: 0 β©: 0
Very cool! Β It's interesting to see the great disparity in what groups were represented in the series. Β We desperately need an updated version!
Out of curiosity, shouldn't Archelon be sister to the sauropterygians (forming pantestudines), as per the study on Pappochelys? Β By extension, pantestudines would then either be sister to Tylosaurus if we follow that aforementioned study, though if I remember correctly, it didn't take much to move them into archosauromorphs, which is more parsimonious with genetic, protein, and morphological studies. Β Whether or not you choose to take ichthyosauromorpha along for the ride would be up to you.
π: 0 β©: 1
Sauropterygians as pantestudinians is by no means certain, though it is not crazy. The particular matrix used by the Pappochelys description has always recovered that result, even back in the 90s. It is not a new (or settled) idea!
π: 0 β©: 1
Ooh, interesting. Β I wasn't aware they were reusing an old (and perhaps flawed?) matrix.
π: 0 β©: 1
This is the original paper reporting on that analysis.
π: 0 β©: 0
Nice!
I kinda wish Gorgonops was changed to Inostrancevia, and that Quetzalcoatlus was in...
And yes, I know that Mr. Fossilpants sent you it. Just some wishful thinking.
π: 0 β©: 1
Understandable. I'm fairly certain that Quetzalcoatlus is not the only missing animal. If someone provided a list of those, I wouldn't mind updating the phylogeny with them.
π: 0 β©: 2
There's Muttaburrasaurus, Deinosuchus, Dromaeosaurus, Apatosaurus, Titanomyrma, Saurolophus, Bothriolepis, Halisaurus & Euchambersia, for example.
Incidentally, Homo floresiensis wasn't in any of the series; it was included in the book as a bonus creature.
π: 0 β©: 0
The gorgonopsid in WWM was Inostrancevia. They never said it was Gorgonops, but a gorgonopsid, and it's in Siberia.
Also, about high time you parodied a series that's SOOO inaccurate even for its time.,
π: 0 β©: 2
was responsible for the taxon list.
π: 0 β©: 0
The list I sent him said Gorgonops.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, the size and location clearly says Inostrancevia, and they never said Gorgonops; some people may have heard it as that, though.
π: 0 β©: 1
Inostrancevia would make more sense, but the book (which was written by people directly affiliated with the franchise) says Gorgonops.
π: 1 β©: 1
WTF?!
That book also claims Smilodon lived before the Late Pleistocene and never encountered humans, too......
Basically, fuck Impossible Pictures.
π: 1 β©: 2
Yeah I have this same book (The Complete Guide to Prehistoric Life) and it's full of all sorts of weird stuff like that.
π: 0 β©: 1
My local library has that book, and I want to burn it so badly (alon with Alan Fedducia's book they have alongside-two scars in a section of otherwise up-to-date book)
π: 0 β©: 0
Shouldn't Basilosaurus be sister to Odobenocetops?
How sure are we that enaliosaurs are archosauromorphs?
Where would Quetzalcoatlus go? Sister to Ornithocheirus + Pteranodon?
π: 0 β©: 1
Good catch; I've fixed the position of Basilosaurus.
We are not sure that euryapsids are archosauromorphs (or are even a thing), but there are some creeping indications that that's where they go. Naturally, I was taught by one of the primary supporters of that view, so never let it be said that I'm entirely unbiased.
Quetzalcoatlus would be sister to Tapejara.
π: 1 β©: 0
So many TV memories in a cladogram! Is interesting make comparison of the starring of the different groups... is curious, but for example there is more perissodactyls than ornithopods.
By the way, Quetzalcoatlus doesn't appear in Walking with Dinosaurs?
π: 1 β©: 1
I remember Quetzalcoatlus as well, but it wasn't in the list sent me.
π: 1 β©: 0
Out of curiosity, why do you favour lepidosauromorph affinities for turtles over ones with archosauromorphs? I don't have a strong opinion either way as I've really not done much research on it but I'd love to hear why you put them where you do on these cladograms.
π: 0 β©: 1
Turtles are not lepidosauromorphs here; they are in a polytomy along with both lepidosauromorphs and archosauromorphs, a representation of uncertainty on that issue.
π: 0 β©: 1
I completely misunderstood that which is likely a result of me trying to squish huge cladograms in notebooks with limited space. I've taught myself to read my own strange way of creating them in constrained spaces. Seems obvious now that I'm reading it properly.
Is Tylosaurus seriously the only lepidosauromorph in the Walking With series? I've never really considered it until now.
I also just noticed that you left out Quetzalcoatlus in Episode 6 of Walking with Dinosaurs.
π: 0 β©: 1
We probably all have our preferred cladogram formats that we have become accustomed to reading!
provided the taxon list, so all omissions are his fault. 
π: 0 β©: 1
There was also a coati depicted as a nest raider in the Leaellynasaura episode. They actually threw dirt in its face to film that shot!
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh, right! Poor coati.
π: 0 β©: 1
You'd think they would've picked a shrew or even a recolour of the Didelphodon model rather than a coati of all things. That's one of the last things I think of when trying to visualize Mesozoic mammals.
π: 0 β©: 3
They should have used a platypus...
π: 0 β©: 0
The entire series is a fail in terms of actual facts. Why would they be sensible?
π: 0 β©: 0
A bizarre choice to be sure!
π: 0 β©: 0
The top-down (or left-right, or descriptor of any other fathomable arrangement) sequence in a cladogram does not matter; it is only the branching pattern that is relevant. These three cladograms contain the exact same information: that creodonts and cats are more related to one another than to us.
π: 0 β©: 1
Alright, thank you for clarifying. I must have confusedΒ my observationΒ with character states.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
No worries, it's a common misconception.
π: 0 β©: 0