New Ceratosaur! (and why Feduccia can't be happy)

[kuni]

A few friends of mine at the SICB conference told me they saw an interesting dino presentation - apparently, a basal ceratosaur has been discovered in China with a digit pattern that confirms other, more advanced carnivoroous theropods like allosaurus, T-rex, etc had 2-3-4 as their main large digits, with 1 and 5 minimized or not present...which, hey, sounds a lot like bird digits!

There's also apparently a 5-fingered new tyrannosauroid that helps to confirm this at well. Sadly, they haven't been named yet, so it may be awhile but hey! new ceratosaur, new tyrannosauroid, AND resolution on the digit issue.

I found the abstract, though it's not super-helpful: www.sicb.org/meetings/2009/schedule/abstractdetails.php3?id=252

[sid]

For a moment i feared they have found a feathered Ceratosaurus... ;D

[kuni]

I'm pretty sure that won't be an issue

Still, this discovery (and the wing-assisted incline running) does pretty much mean than birds are theropod dinosaurs, case closed, Feduccia's done.

[sid]

Jan 8, 2009 18:06:15 GMT kuni said:

I'm pretty sure that won't be an issue

Still, this discovery (and the wing-assisted incline running) does pretty much mean than birds are theropod dinosaurs, case closed, Feduccia's done.

Bird are DERIVED dinosaurs,not "original" ones...Sorry,but i can't consider a sparrow or a duck a TRUE theropod.

Let the term "theropod dinosaur" only to define kickass animals like T.rex,Allosaurs,Dromeosaurids and such,please... ;D

[arioch]

Birds ARE dinosaurs, since they are included inside Dinosauria (clades rules). They are so theropods than archaeopteryx.

And Golden eagles kickass!

Nice findings. Shame the data are so brief...

[Dinotoyforum]

Let's look forward to the papers! Sounds very interesting.

[Tyrannax]

Hmmm interesting. Ceratosaurs and Tyrannosaurs, my two favorites.

[sid]

Jan 8, 2009 19:44:18 GMT arioch said:

Birds ARE dinosaurs, since they are included inside Dinosauria (clades rules). They are so theropods than archaeopteryx.

And Golden eagles kickass!

Nice findings. Shame the data are so brief...

Birds rule indeed (especially eagles and such),but,sorry,cladistic sucks...It's soooo overrated

[arioch]

Cladistics sucks? lol. You are right, is better be guided for our own fantasies and personal preferences. Taxonomy and logic destroy happiness.

[sid]

Jan 8, 2009 21:15:39 GMT arioch said:

Cladistics sucks? lol. You are right, is better be guided for our own fantasies and personal preferences. Taxonomy and logic destroy happiness.

Cladistic doesn't seem always a good companion for logic... ;D

[Dinotoyforum]

Jan 8, 2009 21:30:18 GMT sid said:

Jan 8, 2009 21:15:39 GMT arioch said:

Cladistics sucks? lol. You are right, is better be guided for our own fantasies and personal preferences. Taxonomy and logic destroy happiness.

Cladistic doesn't seem always a good companion for logic... ;D

If we are gonna talk cladistics, lets set up a cladistics thread I would contribute

[arioch]

The cladistic framework is the dominant paradigm for phylogenetic reconstruction . Do you have a better classification system to defy the one accepted by the scientists? or you´re just trolling?

[Dinotoyforum]

Jan 8, 2009 21:40:30 GMT arioch said:

The cladistic framework is the dominant paradigm for phylogenetic reconstruction . Do you have a better classification system to defy the one accepted by the scientists? or you´re just trolling?

/\ New thread please

[[][][]cordylus[][][]]

Jan 8, 2009 18:55:08 GMT sid said:

Jan 8, 2009 18:06:15 GMT kuni said:

I'm pretty sure that won't be an issue

Still, this discovery (and the wing-assisted incline running) does pretty much mean than birds are theropod dinosaurs, case closed, Feduccia's done.

Bird are DERIVED dinosaurs,not "original" ones...Sorry,but i can't consider a sparrow or a duck a TRUE theropod.

Let the term "theropod dinosaur" only to define kickass animals like T.rex,Allosaurs,Dromeosaurids and such,please... ;D

Birds are dinosaurs as much as humans are mammals. (surprisingly though, some people{creationists} think that humans actually aren't mammals, or any other animal).

[Tyrannax]

Cordylus, Your on the right track, but saying birds are as much dinosaur as we are mammals are two different things. In all honesty, we're as much as mammals as dogs are mammals. And Dinosaurs, being reptiles is not true for birds. Birds are birds. Cardinals are as much birds as humans are mammals.

Birds/Dinosaur/Reptile/Fish/Mammals/Etc are all different. Birds stemmed off of Dinosaurs, yes,but Dinosaurs stemmed off of Reptiles. Mammals also stemmed from reptiles. And being human, we are completely mammals, no longer reptiles. Birds are no longer Dinosaurs, but are more stemmed from them into a new class of warm blooded winged animals.

[sbell]

Jan 11, 2009 0:15:09 GMT Tyrannax said:

Cordylus, Your on the right track, but saying birds are as much dinosaur as we are mammals are two different things. In all honesty, we're as much as mammals as dogs are mammals. And Dinosaurs, being reptiles is not true for birds. Birds are birds. Cardinals are as much birds as humans are mammals.

Birds/Dinosaur/Reptile/Fish/Mammals/Etc are all different. Birds stemmed off of Dinosaurs, yes,but Dinosaurs stemmed off of Reptiles. Mammals also stemmed from reptiles. And being human, we are completely mammals, no longer reptiles. Birds are no longer Dinosaurs, but are more stemmed from them into a new class of warm blooded winged animals.

If dinosaurs are a type of reptile, and birds evolved from a type of dinosaur, it stands to reason that birds are a type of reptile. The term 'non-avian dinosaur' was coined to differentiate the birds from the other dinosaurs.

There is a cladistic thread somewhere to delve further into this.

[Tyrannax]

Part of what you just said was what I was trying to get across, but to be honest I may have mixed things, up. I'm no good at explaining things.

Non-avalion? That just answered a question I've asked myself for years. "What do you call the difference between Sauropod dinosaurs and theropod dinosaurs?" Is this what you meant? (I'm using the sauropoda group as an example for all other non theropod dinosaurs).

[sbell]

Jan 11, 2009 2:53:05 GMT Tyrannax said:

Part of what you just said was what I was trying to get across, but to be honest I may have mixed things, up. I'm no good at explaining things.

Non-avalion? That just answered a question I've asked myself for years. "What do you call the difference between Sauropod dinosaurs and theropod dinosaurs?" Is this what you meant? (I'm using the sauropoda group as an example for all other non theropod dinosaurs).

Yes, non-Avian dinosaurs was created specifically to refer to the traditional dinosaurs (ornithischians + sauropods + non-bird theropods). It is not a classification term, or any such thing, but instead a term of convenience; unlike 'dinosaur' which is meant to convey a classification term.

[Tyrannax]

^ Very helpful sbell. I've been curious about that for some time, and its going to come in handy one day. Avian and non-avian dinosaurs are so different in so many ways its hard to believe we classify them all as dinosaurs.

[sid]

Jan 11, 2009 0:15:09 GMT Tyrannax said:

Cordylus, Your on the right track, but saying birds are as much dinosaur as we are mammals are two different things. In all honesty, we're as much as mammals as dogs are mammals. And Dinosaurs, being reptiles is not true for birds. Birds are birds. Cardinals are as much birds as humans are mammals.

Birds/Dinosaur/Reptile/Fish/Mammals/Etc are all different. Birds stemmed off of Dinosaurs, yes,but Dinosaurs stemmed off of Reptiles. Mammals also stemmed from reptiles. And being human, we are completely mammals, no longer reptiles. Birds are no longer Dinosaurs, but are more stemmed from them into a new class of warm blooded winged animals.

Agree with ya,man...