Saturday, May 2, 2015

Another scansoriopterygid intermediate

Yi qi study:
The wings of birds and their closest theropod relatives share a uniform fundamental architecture, with pinnate flight feathers as the key component1, 2, 3. Here we report a new scansoriopterygid theropod, Yi qi gen. et sp. nov., based on a new specimen from the Middle–Upper Jurassic period Tiaojishan Formation of Hebei Province, China4. Yi is nested phylogenetically among winged theropods but has large stiff filamentous feathers of an unusual type on both the forelimb and hindlimb. However, the filamentous feathers of Yi resemble pinnate feathers in bearing morphologically diverse melanosomes5. Most surprisingly, Yi has a long rod-like bone extending from each wrist, and patches of membranous tissue preserved between the rod-like bones and the manual digits. Analogous features are unknown in any dinosaur but occur in various flying and gliding tetrapods6, 7, 8, 9, 10, suggesting the intriguing possibility that Yi had membranous aerodynamic surfaces totally different from the archetypal feathered wings of birds and their closest relatives. Documentation of the unique forelimbs of Yi greatly increases the morphological disparity known to exist among dinosaurs, and highlights the extraordinary breadth and richness of the evolutionary experimentation that took place close to the origin of birds.
Supplementary information:
If a membrane is reconstructed lateral to the trunk, the wing is similar in outline to ........ a pterosaur wing if the styliform element is approximately laterally oriented.
Extended data:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14423.html#extended-data

Abstract:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14423.html




Here are a few other references:
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/29/chinese-dinosaur-had-bat-like-wings-and-feathers/
These wings were mutually exclusive: dinosaur or pterosaur, feathery or leathery. But Yi went for both options! It had membrane wings with a feathery covering on the leading edge. It shows that at least some dinosaurs had independently evolved the same kind of wings as pterosaurs—an extraordinary example of convergent evolution.

http://www.nature.com/articles/nature14392.epdf?referrer_access_token=ZfVGgFg7XRdurry3TN0QoNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PiQtvFAER-nO6rVanRtj7cIVRMaXAe5x5JlY3vpNDkkxI0a1Q8_ZTmq63AsO-pCE_wZ6-LixrY3IBCK0O57ofs-sVhrdtkwoPKG1MmYYRWBnKtWySldMOVBfPZhs5YnU3psTTjZa6_HEcPzvjKZvRO962MU9ssjnM38C1xE3d-slSGO5xkY9Myf0Z8kfmYNxU%3D&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com

http://www.nature.com/news/more-on-unicorns-1.17419
It is here that we enter unicorn territory for no dinosaur, however unusual, has been found with anything like this feature. The authors are appropriately cautious, therefore, in their interpretation.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/lost-worlds/2015/apr/29/bird-yi-qi-the-dinosaur-evolution-flight-feather-nature

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/04/30/dino-bat-a-new-flying-dinosaur-with-membranous-wings/

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/dinosaur%E2%80%99s-ride-may-have-been-glide
A dinosaur called Yi qi appears to have lifted a page from pterosaurs’ flight plan. Protruding from each of the newly discovered dinosaur’s wrists was a weird rodlike bone that may have attached to a fleshy wing that helped the dinosaur glide or fly, researchers report April 29 in Nature.“We’ve never seen anything like this in a dinosaur before,” says paleontologist Sarah Werning of Stony Brook University in New York. “It’s almost like this dinosaur was pretending to be a pterosaur.”

On the other hand, if the Xu et al interpretation is wrong, then this is significant:
The highly elongated manual digit IV of Yi and other scansoriopterygids is unique among theropods but superficially similar to ...... the highly elongated fourth finger in pterosaurs. (page 71)

Friday, January 9, 2015

Dino to bird - off on the wrong foot

The revival of the dino to bird idea began with the work of John Ostrom in the 1970's. But the problem is that Ostrom made the mistake of taking the secondarily flightless Deinonychus to be a land-based transitional between dinosaur and Paraves.
It is now clear that Deinonychus is a secondarily flightless member of Paraves. It is considered a dromaeosaur which is included in Paraves. "Secondarily" means that it descended from a flying ancestor.
The current dino to bird theory revival dates back to Ostrom's mistake in the 1970's.
There is no connection between actual dinosaurs and Paraves.

Relevant links:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=SihlpQTlVdAC&pg=PA255&dq=secondarily+flightless+Deinonychus&hl=en&sa=X&ei=u_WpVKGHIYqHyQSDgIGgAw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=secondarily%20flightless%20Deinonychus&f=false


https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdinosaur-museum.org%2Ffeatheredinosaurs%2FAre_Birds_Really_Dinosaurs.pdf&ei=2DBZVYGeK9WnyASXjoHwCg&usg=AFQjCNEJrFq0orAoklv1snX0OPSZFHKKnA&sig2=VoQeE-VSU4vYesMMyaNZCw&bvm=bv.93564037,d.aWw
With the benefit of hindsight it is easy to see that if fossils of the
small flying dromaeosaurs from China had only been discovered before the larger flightless dromaeosaurs
like Deinonychus or Velociraptor were found, the interpretations of the past three decades on how birds
are related to dinosaurs would have been significantly different. If it had already been established that
dromaeosaurs were birds that could fly, then the most logical interpretation of larger flightless
dromaeosaurs found afterwards would have to be that they represented birds, basically like the prehistoric
equivalent of an Ostrich, which had lost their ability to fly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinonychus
Several years later, Ostrom noted similarities between the forefeet of Deinonychus and that of birds, an observation which led him to revive the hypothesis that birds are descended from dinosaurs.[34]
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1976.tb00244.x/epdf

http://biostor.org/reference/110202.text
http://biostor.org/reference/110202
Saurischian monophyly and the origin of birds
Jacques Gauthier
Interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds
In 1969, this dinosaur was described and named Deinonychus by John Ostrom of Yale University.[24] The next year, Ostrom redescribed a specimen of Pterodactylus in the Dutch Teyler Museum as another skeleton of Archaeopteryx.[25] The specimen consisted mainly of a single wing and its description made Ostrom aware of the similarities between the wrists of Archaeopteryxand Deinonychus.[26] 

Tuesday, January 6, 2015

Dinosaur to bird - implausible rates of change

For the dino to bird theory to be correct, the evolutionary rates must have been up to four times faster. But that would mean that for the dino to bird theory to be correct, it would require rates of evolution comparable to those in the Cambrian Explosion. Not plausible.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/28563682
Huge meat-eating, land-living dinosaurs evolved into birds by constantly shrinking for over 50 million years, scientists have revealed.
Theropods shrunk 12 times from 163kg to 0.8kg before becoming modern birds.
The researchers found theropods were the only dinosaurs to get continuously smaller.
Their skeletons also changed four times faster than other dinosaurs, helping them to survive.
They found that the dinosaur group directly related to birds shrank rapidly from about 200 million years ago.
It showed a decrease in body mass of 162.2kg (25st 7lb) from the largest average body size to Archaeopteryx, the earliest known bird.
These bird ancestors also evolved new adaptations, including feathers, wishbones and wings, four times faster than other dinosaurs.
Shrinking and new bird-like traits jointly influenced the transition of dinosaurs to birds, researchers say.
The researchers concluded that the evolution of the branch of dinosaurs leading to birds was more innovative than other dinosaur lineages.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2014/07/31/50-million-years-of-shrinking-theropod-dinosaurs/

Because our results allow us to map the appearance dates of lineages onto the phylogeny, we can see that evolutionary rates across part of the lineage leading to birds occurred much faster than expected compared to the rest of the tree – up to four times faster, in fact (Lee et al. 2014a). This seemingly explains why several groups of tetanuran theropods – allosauroids, tyrannosauroids, compsognathids and others – appear near-simultaneously in the fossil record: it seems that the time intervals between their originations really were very short. Why evolution was occurring so rapidly in these animals remains, of course, an unknown.
According to the dino to bird theory, Paraves appeared "near-simultaneously" with its purported coelurosaur dinosaur ancestor . This is no longer evolution theory. This is creationism.


The study itself:

Abstract:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6196/562

Full study:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/264386153_Sustained_miniaturization_and_anatomical_innovation_in_the_dinosaurian_ancestors_of_birds

The study Supplementary Material:
https://www.academia.edu/7832790/Lee_M.S.Y._Cau_A._Naish_D._Dyke_G.J._2014._Sustained_miniaturization_and_anatomical_innovation_in_the_dinosaurian_ancestors_of_birds._Science_345_562-566_NOTE_SM_below_has_hi-res_figures_which_were_pixellated_on_the_Science_SM_pdf_



Notice the small red line connecting the compsognathid branch and the ornithomimosaur branch.
This is an indication that they are not similar:


FOR COMPARISON

https://www.academia.edu/4371818/Lee_M.S.Y._Soubrier_J._and_Edgecombe_G.D._2013._Rates_of_phenotypic_and_genomic_evolution_during_the_Cambrian_Explosion._Current_Biology_23_1889-1895_4_files_-_main_text_2_SI_files_Commentary_
The near-simultaneous appearance of most modern animal body plans (phyla) ~530 million years ago during the Cambrian explosion is strong evidence for a brief interval of rapid phenotypic and genetic innovation, yet the exact speed and nature of this grand adaptive radiation remain debated [1–12]. Crucially, rates of morphological evolution in the past (i.e., in ancestral lineages) can be inferred from phenotypic differences among living organisms—just as molecular evolutionary rates in ancestral lineages can be inferred from genetic divergences [13]. We here employed Bayesian [14] and maximum likelihood [15] phylogenetic clock methods on an extensive anatomical[16]and genomic[17] data set for arthropods, the most diverse phylum in the Cambrian and today. Assuming an Ediacaran origin for arthropods, phenotypic evolution was ~4 times faster, and molecular evolution ~5.5 times faster, during the Cambrian explosion compared to all subsequent parts of the Phanerozoic. These rapid evolutionary rates are robust to assumptions about the precise age of arthropods. Surprisingly,these fast early rates do not change substantially even if the radiation of arthropods is compressed entirely into the Cambrian (~542 mega-annum [Ma]) or telescoped into the Cryogenian (~650 Ma). The fastest inferred rates are still consistent with evolution by natural selection and with data from living organisms, potentially resolving ‘‘Darwin’s dilemma.’’ However, evolution during the Cambrian explosion was unusual (compared to the subsequent Phanerozoic) in that fast rates were present across many lineages.
This means that the dino to bird theory is right up there with the Cambrian Explosion in terms of it being unusual.
The near-simultaneity and the much faster rates of evolution required by the dino to bird theory are VERY UNUSUAL. As unusual as the Cambrian Explosion.


Also:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/09/how_to_solve_th076861.html

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwins-dilemma-remains-unresolved-what-lees-paper-didnt-discuss/


Friday, January 2, 2015

Archaeopteryx

The dino to bird folks are slowly coming to the idea that birds originated in the trees, "trees down". They are acknowledging that it is not plausible that birds evolved "ground up".
But that creates a problem for the dino to bird theory.
Since Archaeopteryx did not evolve in an arboreal environment, it now contradicts the dino to bird theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx
The excellent preservation of Archaeopteryx fossils and other terrestrial fossils found at Solnhofen indicates that they did not travel far before becoming preserved.[48] The Archaeopteryx specimens found are likely therefore, to have lived on the low islands surrounding the Solnhofen lagoon rather than to have been corpses that drifted in from farther away. Archaeopteryx skeletons are considerably less numerous in the deposits of Solnhofen than those of pterosaurs, of which seven genera have been found.[49] The pterosaurs included species such as Rhamphorhynchus belonging to the Rhamphorhynchidae, the group which dominated the niche currently occupied by seabirds, and which became extinct at the end of the Jurassic. The pterosaurs, which also included Pterodactylus, were common enough that it is unlikely that the specimens found are vagrants from the larger islands 50 km (31 mi) to the north.[50]
The islands that surrounded the Solnhofen lagoon were low lying, semi-arid, and sub-tropical with a long dry season and little rain.[51] The closest modern analogue for the Solnhofen conditions is said to be Orca Basin in the northern Gulf of Mexico, although that is much deeper than the Solnhofen lagoons.[49] The flora of these islands was adapted to these dry conditions and consisted mostly of low (3 m [10 ft]) shrubs.[50] Contrary to reconstructions of Archaeopteryx climbing large trees, these seem to have been mostly absent from the islands; few trunks have been found in the sediments and fossilized tree pollen also is absent.

See page 88 here for an inconsistent rationalization of mainstream thinking:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=f7E5AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=buried%20at%20quite%20some%20distance&f=false

Thursday, January 1, 2015

How did birds come into being?

How did birds come into being?
First we must distinguish between modern birds on the one hand, and their feathered ancestors called "basal paraves" on the other.
Basal paraves were feathered, long-bony-tailed, flying creatures (eg. scansoriopteryx). No modern birds have long-bony-tails.

So the question becomes, how did basal paraves come into being?
The dinosaur to bird theory suggests that basal paraves evolved from coelurosaur dinosaurs (eg. tyrannosaurs).
The pterosaur to bird theory suggests that basal paraves evolved from pterosaurs (eg. rhamphorhynchids). 
The topic immediately becomes complicated, because there is a set of feathered, long-bony-tailed creatures that did not fly (eg. oviraptors, alvarezsaurids).
The dinosaur to bird theory views these creatures as transitional between ground-based coelurosaur dinosaurs and flying basal paraves. They call them "non-paraves maniraptors".
The pterosaur to bird theory views these creatures as secondarily flightless* members of basal paraves.

It is important to realize that according to the fossil record, all these flightless, feathered creatures came after (closer to today than) the flying members of basal paraves.
This is straightforwardly consistent with them being secondarily flightless. On the other hand, for them to be transitional between dinosaurs and flying basal paraves, requires purported lengthy ghost lineages (up to tens of millions of years in length) and purported exaptations.



* An ostrich is an example of a "secondarily flightless" modern bird.

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Pubis evolution


http://pterosaurheresies.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/prepubes588.jpg
Pterosaur pubis (in green) and prepubis (in yellow). The drawing of MPUM 6009 is the most relevant.



The pterosaur pubis (green) is homologous with the basal paraves superior pubic ramus and pubic body.
The pterosaur prepubis (yellow) is homologous with the basal paraves inferior pubic ramus.


http://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2009/12/24/back-to-that-pterosaur-sacrum-pelvis/
pterosaurs also have a fourth pelvic bone in the form of the pre-pubis. This pair of bones (one for each side) lie, and no points for guessing this, in front of, and articulate with, the pubes.
http://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/tag/pterosaur-evolution/page/6/
The prepubis of pterosaurs is a pelvic bone not found in the vast majority of tetrapods. It is not homologous with the prepubis of monotremes and marsupials. Nor is it homologous with the so-called “prepubic” bones of crocodilians, which are homologous with the pubic bones of other amniotes (Seeley 1901). The prepubis of ornithischian dinosaurs is a process of the pubis and not a separate ossification.
For example:
The pubis/prepubis parts of MPUM 6009 above, correspond to the 3 parts of the paraves pubis, as seen in the oviraptor pubis in drawing "C" below. 

http://qilong.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/caenagnathid-ilia.jpg?w=932&h=549




Sunday, December 14, 2014

Feet

Pterosaur feet are like basal paraves feet. Dinosaur feet are not like basal paraves feet.

ivpp.cas.cn/qt/papers/201403/P020140314393548274893.pdf
Distally the [Epidendrosaurus] trochlea of metatarsal I aligns with those of II and III as in advanced perching birds, but not in other known dinosaurs.
The foot of Epidendrosaurus [a Scansoriopterygidae] is unique among nonavian
theropods. Although it does not preserve a reversed
hallux, metatarsal I is articulated with metatarsal II at
such a low position that the trochleae of metatarsals I–IV
are almost on the same level (see Figs. 1, 2d), which
is similar to those of perching birds including the Early
Cretaceous flying birds Sinornis (Sereno 1992) and
Longipteryx (Zhang and Zhou 2001), as well as many arboreal
pterosaurs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scansoriopteryx
It [Scansoriopteryx] also had an unusually large first toe, or hallux, which was low on the foot and may have been reversed, allowing some grasping ability.[1]
The Scansoriopterygidae are among the most basal members of Paraves.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../391886a0.html
Other features of digits I-IV of the D. weintraubi foot indicate a capacity for grasping that is consistent with an ability to climb but is unexpected in an obligate cursor. The claws are moderately curved (nearly as strongly as the claws of the manus); all phalanges except the most proximal have well developed flexor tubercles for the insertion of digital flexors (Fig. 2); and all of the IP joints allow for extensive flexion of the digits (as exhibited by digit IV; Fig. 2). Furthermore, the phalangeal proportions of the digits of Dimorphodon and other basal pterosaurs are similar to those of birds with grasping feet (that is, perching, climbing, and raptorial species) and unlike those of primarily ground-living birds, bipedal dinosaurs and the primitive dinosauromorphs Lagerpeton and Marasuchus.

Friday, December 12, 2014

Notable

http://www.ivpp.ac.cn/qt/papers/201206/P020120604508520389814.pdf
The [Epidendrosaurus] material described in this paper was collected from a new locality, Daohugou, in east Nei Mongol, northeast China, which is west of Liaoning Province. Many salamanders(Wang 2000), plants and insects (Zhang 2002)have recently been discovered from this new locality. It is notable that an anurognathid rhamphorhynchoid pterosaur [Jeholopterus] with beautiful hair [pycnofibers] covering the whole body has also been reported from this locality (Wang et al. 2002). The estimated age of the deposit at this locality is very controversial and ranges from the Middle Jurassic or the Early Cretaceous according to various authors (Wang etal. 2000; Zhang 2002); however, most workers currently regard it as being Late Jurassic.
Epidendrosaurus is a Scansoriopterygidae and one of the most basal members of Paraves.


http://link.springer.com/article/10.1360/02tb9054#page-1
We report a new and nearly completely articulated rhamphorhynchoid pterosaur, Jeholopterus ningchengensis gen. et sp. nov., with excellently preserved fibres in the wing membrane and “hairs” in the neck, body and tail regions.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=A+nearly+completely+articulated+rhamphorhynchoid+pterosaur+with+exceptionally+well-preserved+wing+membranes+and+%22hairs%22+from+Inner+Mongolia,+northeast+China&author=WANG+X&author=ZHOU+Z&author=ZHANG+F&author=XU+X&publication_year=2002&journal=Chin+Sci+Bull&volume=47&pages=226-230


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeholopterus
Jeholopterus was a small anurognathid pterosaur from the Middle to Late Jurassic[1]Daohugou Beds of the Tiaojishan Formation of Inner MongoliaChina , preserved with hair-like pycnofibres and skin remains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yi_%28dinosaur%29
The only known Yi qi fossil was found in rocks assigned to the Tiaojishan Formation, dating to the Callovian-Oxfordian age of the Middle-Late Jurassic,[1] dated to between 165 and 153 million years ago.[3] This is the same formation (and around the same age) as the other known scansoriopterygids Epidexipteryx and Scansoriopteryx.

Yi qi




Very interesting:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-bat-winged-dinosaur-that-never-was-69530666/?no-ist
Pennycuick was puzzled by the clawed fingers of Archaeopteryx. Why would a bird have differentiated fingers? Rather than look at the fingers as just a holdover from dinosaurian ancestry, Pennycuick assumed that they had some kind of flight function. The fingers of Archaeopteryx, he proposed, “could have supported a small, batlike hand-wing.” Such a structure would have been inherited from the featherless ancestor of Archaeopteryx, he proposed, “constituting the main wing area in the stage before feathers were developed.”
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KG86AgWwFEUC&pg=PA454&dq=patagial&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AzRBVendC9DLaOehgMgC&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=patagial&f=false

Modelling the Flying Bird

 By C.J. Pennycuick

Monday, December 8, 2014

Vocabulary

It needs to be kept in mind that the vocabulary that is routinely used in discussing the origin of birds is based on the dino to bird theory. The vocabulary is not neutral. It assumes the dino to bird theory*.
This makes it tricky to even describe the pterosaur to bird theory. You have to use very qualified expressions, which even then, imply a dino to bird theory.
For example, I often use the phrase "basal paraves". This is intended to mean the long-bony-tailed feathered flying and secondarily flightless creatures. For example, Scansoriopterygidae.
But the category "paraves" is defined WITHIN the dino to bird theory. It assumes the dino to bird theory. So I obviously do not mean to include the baggage that the term "paraves" carries within the dino to bird theory.
For example, I do not mean that basal paraves evolved from dinosaurs and I do not mean to exclude oviraptors from the paraves group.


* for example consider this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraves
Paraves is a branch-based clade defined to include all dinosaurs which are more closely related to birds than to oviraptorosaurs.

Sunday, November 30, 2014

Intramandibular joint

Basal paraves and pterosaurs do not have an intramandibular joint. Dinosaurs do have an intramandibular joint.


PTEROSAURS

http://dml.cmnh.org/2002Sep/msg00187.html
The unusual intra-mandibular joint described above is found only in herrerasaurids and theropods among dinosaurs. Dinosaurian outgroups (pterosaurs, crurotarsal archosaurs) also lack an intra-mandibular joint.

BASAL PARAVES

Page 21:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=kZqJAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=Archaeopteryx+intramandibular+joint&source=bl&ots=RKECg3KMdM&sig=0b_OE2jWhNOIFTxjXSdvNt4E-dU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ocV7VKDBBfSZsQSk6YGwCw&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Archaeopteryx%20intramandibular%20joint&f=false
[Archaeopteryx] does not appear to have had an intramandibular joint

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odontognathae
.....intramandibular articulation something that is actually absent in Archaeopteryx, but found in many of its theropod relatives.[2]

DINOSAURS 

 Feduccia:
It would not tax the imagination to engender a long list of obstacles for the now dominant model of a theropod origin of birds, including....the sliding lower jaw joint [intramandibular joint] of theropods (absent in birds)

http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/G104/lectures/104therop.html
The traits uniting Theropoda seem to include:
.........
An intramandibular joint between the dentary and post-dentary bones: this may have served as a shock absorber while feeding on live prey. (Herrerasaurs have a slightly different configuration of the intramandibular joint, and thus may be convergent.)

http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
the analysis of Benton (2004) demonstrated that the only unequivocal synapomorphy diagnosing Theropoda is the presence of an intramandibular joint.
http://t48257.science-dinosaurs-general.sciencetalk.info/some-basal-intramandibular-joint-questions-t48257.html
Philip J. Currie stated in (1) that nearly all theropods had a movable
intramandibular joint. Just a few theropods had secondarily fused this
articulation.









Friday, November 21, 2014

Summary


Here is a comparison of basal pterosaur, basal paraves and coelurosaur dinosaur.
As we can see, basal paraves are like pterosaurs. Basal paraves are not like dinosaurs.
This is a work in progress.
If anyone would like to contribute to this analysis, please feel free.








Basal Pterosaur: Rhamphorhynchidae
Basal Paraves: Scansoriopterygidae
Coelurosaur Dinosaur: Proceratosauridae
(or Compsognathoidea)








Basal Basal Coelurosaur
Pterosaur  Paraves Dinosaur
CHARACTERS
Back 1 Notarium: absent (0) present (1) 0 0
0
2  Hyposphene-hypantrum: absent (0) present (1) ? 0 1
Breathing 1 Respiratory air sacs: absent (0) present (1) 1 1 x 0
2 Aspiration pump: absent (0) present (1) 1 1 x 0
3 Rib lever processes: absent (0) present (1) 1 1 x 0
Chest 1 Keeled breastbone: absent (0) present (1)  1 ? 0
2 Furcula (wishbone): absent (0) present (1) 0 0 ?
3 Interclavicle: absent (0) present (1) 1 ? 0
Leg 1 Thigh bone: horizontal (0) not horizontal (1) 1 1 1
Foot 1 Hyperextended second toe: absent (0) present (1) 0 0 0
2 Hinge-like ankle joint: absent (0) present (1) 1 1 1
Pelvis 1 Pubic bone: pointing to back (0) to front (1) down (2) 1 1 1
2 Pubic bones: not fused (0) fused (1) 0 ? ?
3 Acetabulum: not perforated (0) partial (1) full (2) 0 x 1 x 2
4 Pelvic bones: not fused (0) fused (1) 1 ? ?
5 Pre-pubic bone: absent (0) present (1) 1 ** **
6 Supra-acetabular shelf: not present (0) present (1) 0 0 x 1
7 Antitrochanter: absent (0) present (1) 0 0 x 1
Tail 1 Caudal vertebrae: less than 15 (0) greater than 15 (1) 1 1 1
2 Caudal rods: absent (0) present (1) 1 1 x 0
3 Muscle mass of M. caudofemoralis longus: small (0) large (1) 0 0 x 1
Skull 1 Beak like jaw: absent (0) present (1) 1 1 x 0
2 Teeth: absent (0) present (1) 1 1 1
3 Crest: absent (0) present (1)  1 1 1
4 Neck attaches to skull; from rear (0) from below (1) 0 0 0
5 Serrated teeth: absent (0) present (1) 1 1
1
6 Semicircular canals:  expanded (0) not expanded (1) 0 ? ?
7 Intramandibular joint: absent (0) present (1) 0 0 x 1
8 Mandibular fenestra: absent (0) present (1) * * *
Shoulder 1 Strap-like scapula: absent (0) present (1) 1 1 x 0
2 Scapula orientation to backbone: subparallel  (0) parallel (1) 1 1 x 0
3 Glenoid fossa: elevated (0) not elevated (1) 0 0 x 1
Feather 1 Stage 2 feathers: absent (0) present (1) 1 1 x 0
2 Pennaceous feathers: absent (0) present (1) 0 x 1 x 0
Wing 1 Propatagium: absent (0) present (1) 1 1 x 0
2 Patagium: absent (0) present (1)  1 1 x 0
3 Wing membrane: absent (0) present (1) 1 x 0 0
4 Elongated 3rd finger: absent (0) present (1) 1 1 x 0
5 Number of fingers: 2 fingers (2) 3 fingers (3) 4  fingers (4) 4 x 3 2/3
6 Pteroid bone: absent (0) present (1) 1 x 0 0
7 Capable of flapping flight: absent (0) present (1) 1 1 x 0
Wrist 1 Semilunate carpal: absent (0) present (1) 0 x 1 x 0
2 Proximal carpals: not fused (0) fused (1) 1 ? ?
3 Distal carpals: not fused (0) fused (1) 1 ? ?
4 Carpometacarpus: absent (0) present(1) 0 x 1 x 0
5 Angle of abduction:  < 25% (0) > 25% (1) ? ? 0
General 1 Warm blooded: absent (0) present (1) 1 1 ?
2 Neural flight control system: absent (0) present (1) 1 ? 0
3 Pneumatic bones: absent (0) present (1) 1 1 ?
* = varies within group
** = see link
x = different