Turning back to the development of pterosaurs to modern birds:
It is believed that dinosaurs and pterosaurs were Ornithodirans.
The dinosaurs went their way on the land and the pterosaurs went their way in the air.
The pterosaurs developed into primitive birds.
It is no wonder that those primitive birds (maniraptors) had some similarity to dinosaurs.
Ornithodira --> Dinosaurs
Ornithodira --> Pterosaurs --> Maniraptors --> Modern birds
The similarities of dinosaurs and maniraptors are symplesiomorphic.
To visualize the idea I am expressing you can think of it this way:
Very early on there was a split of creatures into one line that became land-based dinosaurs and another line that became air-based pterosaurs. Over time, each line developed to adapt to their ecological niche.
The pterosaurs developed through a series of steps to primitive birds (maniraptors) and eventually modern birds.
The dinosaurs on the land developed at the same time on their own line, but eventually died off.
Similarities between dinosaurs and the maniraptors is due to their common origin as ornithodirans.
Those similarities are symplesiomorphic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Some recent studies also support a prolacertiform (as sister taxon to Sharovipteryx or Drepanosauridae) origin for pterosaurs (Renesto & Binelli (2006)), although the discovery that Dimorphodon and a jaw referred to Eudimorphodon have mandibular fenestrae (as well as the possession of air sacs, and, if pycnofibres are homologous to protofeathers, a filamentous covering seems to support an archosaur, specifically avemetatarsalian origin for pterosaurs. I think the second one is more likely, but, since the origins of pterosauria are still pretty unclear (Dave Peters even suggested they were lepidosauromorphs), I wouldn't base your argument on the supposed ancestral traits of avemetatarsalia/ornithodira. Also, based on what you've said, the characteristics you've described are homoplasies, not symplesiomorphies, because pterosaurs do not share these characteristics. If these "dinosaurian" traits were symplesiomorphies, this would imply that maniraptorans are not dinosaurs or pterosaurs.
ReplyDeleteI am not basing my argument on the supposed ancestral traits of avemetatarsalia/ornithodira.
ReplyDeleteThat is just one idea.
And in regards to your second point
"Also, based on what you've said, the characteristics you've described are homoplasies, not symplesiomorphies, because pterosaurs do not share these characteristics."
What "characteristics" are you referring to?
A saurischian pelvis structure (Saurischia), possibly a hand composed of the digits II, III and IV (Tetanurae), an elongated sacrum (coelurosauria), a bowed ulna (Coelurosauria, unambiguous mandibular fenestra (arhcosauria, some advanced members of archosauriformes), enlarged clavicle (coelurosauria), medullary bone (dinosauria), etc.
ReplyDeleteTo begin with the first one:
ReplyDeleteThe saurischian dinosaur pelvic structure is not like the maniraptors.
The ornithiscian dinosaur pelvic structure is like maniraptors.
Right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saurischia
Saurischians are distinguished from ornithischians by their three-pronged pelvic structure, with the pubis pointed forward. The ornithischians' pelvis is arranged with the pubis rotated backward, parallel with the ischium, often also with a forward-pointing process, giving a four-pronged structure.
The ornithischian hip structure is superficially similar to that of birds, which led Seeley to name them "bird-hipped dinosaurs," though he did not propose any specific relationship with birds. He termed saurischians "lizard-hipped" dinosaurs because they retained the ancestral hip anatomy also found in modern lizards.
Yes saurischians have a hip that is in some ways similar to a lizard pelvis, but a saurischian pelvis is much more elongated, and you would never confuse the two. Maniraptoran pelvises are different from those of other saurischians, but they are pretty much just saurischian pelvises with a backwards pointing pubis.
ReplyDeleteYou have said:
ReplyDelete"Maniraptoran pelvises are different from those of other saurischians"
Manirpators are not saurischians. So maniraptors are not "other saurischians". You keep trying to slip your ideas in like this.
Earlier you had said that the saurischian pelvis structure was like the maniraptor pelvis structure. I have now shown that they are not.
Maniraptors have a backward pointing pubis.
It will hardly do for you to say that other than that they are pretty much the same.
Turning to another characteristic that you have listed - "medullary bone".
ReplyDeleteThis is symplesiomorphic since pterosaurs also have this characteristic.
See:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19711478
"This study also documents the presence of what appears to be medullary bone tissue within the medullary cavity of a large femur of Pterodaustro. This suggests that, like birds, reproductively active female pterosaurs may have deposited a special bone tissue (medullary bone) to cope with the demand of calcium during eggshelling."
Turning to the sacrum that you mentioned.
ReplyDeleteBirds are like pterosaurs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertebral_column
"When multiple sacral vertebrae are fused into a single structure, it is called the sacrum. The synsacrum is a similar fused structure found in birds that is composed of the sacral, lumbar, and some of the thoracic and caudal vertebra, as well as the pelvic girdle."
http://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2009/12/24/back-to-that-pterosaur-sacrum-pelvis/
The [pterosaur] sacrum is a block of vertebrae that are fused together and fused to their respective ribs to form a solid, structurally strong, unit.
You keep saying I'm "slipping", slipping on what? (and don't say "your bias") I said that maniraptoran pelvises are like those of other saurischians, because they are most similar to those of non-maniraptoran pelvises and bird pelvises, a kind of intermediate. Also, you have said (in your summary!), "The creatures labeled "maniraptoriformes" are not dinosaurs, but are flying birds and secondarily flightless birds, within the separate bird line", but non-maniraptoran maniraptoriforms (Ornithomimosaurs, Ornitholestes (which is often considered a basal maniraptoran), Haplocheirus, etc.) do not have a backwards pointing pubis, instead they have a regular saurischian pelvis. Notice any inconsistencies there?
ReplyDeleteOk, fine pterosaurs have medullary bone, I was unaware, but so do dinosaurs, so that neither supports nor detracts from either theory.
When you respond you include in your post (you "slip in") your own opinion right into the way you state things.
ReplyDeleteFor example you said:
"Maniraptoran pelvises are different from those of other saurischians".
Here you have slipped in the idea that maniraptors are saurischians - which is simply the unsupported point you are trying to make. And yet you slip it in as if it were a fact.
Are you blind to what you are doing?
No, I simply mean that a backwards pointing pubis is an autapomorphy of derived maniraptorans. Maniraptorans having a modified saurischian pelvis doesn't make them not dinosaurs, believe it or not, there are groups within groups. Also, Pterosaurs have a prepubic bone, as well as a fused pubis and ischium which sweeps back is shaped kind of like an ax head, which no dinosaurs or birds have (although some derived ornithischians have a prepubic bone too, does this mean that some ornithischians aren't dinosaurs and are pterosaurs instead?). So did maniraptorans lose the pre-pubic one, fused pubiis and ischium, and develop a saurischian pelvis independently?
ReplyDeleteWe have already seen that maniraptors did not have a saurischian pelvis.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you keep talking as if they did?
You are wasting my time and your own.
And by the way, a backwards pointing pubis is not an autapomorphy of just derived maniraptorans.
ReplyDeleteThe earliest maniraptors (eg. dromaeosaurids) had a backwards pointing pubis.
You still cannot get the dino to bird idea out of your mind and actually consider what I am saying. It is like your mind has been programmed and you cannot think beyond that programming.
Dromaeosaurs are among the most derived maniraptorans, more basal maniraptorans would be things like therizinosaurs, ornitholestes (which I already said didn't have a backwards pointing pubis), etc. I know you said earliest, but that also isn't true, troodontids, pedopenna, scansoriopterygids, ornitholestes, and archaeopteryx all show up earlier than dromaeosaurids.
ReplyDeleteDromaeosaurs date back to 167 mya.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dromaeosauridae
"Dromaeosaurid fossils have been found in North America, Europe, Africa, Japan, China, Mongolia, Madagascar, Argentina, and Antarctica.[2] They first appeared in the mid-Jurassic Period (Bathonian stage, 167 million years ago) and survived until the end of the Cretaceous (Maastrichtian stage, 65.5 ma), existing for over 100 million years, up until the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event. The presence of dromaeosaurs as early as the Middle Jurassic has been confirmed by the discovery of isolated fossil teeth, though no dromaeosaurid body fossils have been found from this epoch.[3]"
None of the others you listed go back that far.
Those supposed mid jurassic "dromaeosaurs" are based on based on teeth which lack any identifying characteristics beyond "paraves", which means they could also be from a troodontid or some weird archaeopteryx-like thing, and since other teeth found in the formation were identified as being from ricardoestesia (which I highly doubt, given their age, but they could be a close relative of ricardoestesia), and ricardoestesia is another (poorly known) "paravian", these teeth only show that there were "paravians" present in the mid jurassic. The unnamed unit in which they were from is late bathonian (the very end of the middle jurassic), so it would be closer to 164 million years old, although I don't know how reliable the date is since it hasn't been named yet. The tiaojishan formation, which contains anchiornis, a definite troodontid, is from the late bathonian or early oxfordian, so there were probably also troodontids in the mid jurassic. The daohugou beds may also be from the middle jurassic, and if this is the case, then epidexipteryx, scansoriopteryx, and pedopenna date to around the same time as these russian "dromaeosaurs". Currently, there are no unambiuous mid jurassic dromaeosaurs, although they probably existed then, since troodontidae is the sister taxon of dromaeosauridae, they just haven't been found yet, that is, if they will ever be found. Also, earliest isn't the same thing as most primitive; ornitholestes is a more primitive maniraptoran (it may not be a maniraptoran, but as it possesses a "sickle claw" and some other characterisics unique to maniraptorans, I think it probably is) but shows up slightly later (mid kimmeridgian) than these other forms.
ReplyDeleteI am happy to work with you django but I am not sure what you are getting at.
ReplyDeleteI had said that Dromaeosaurs date back to 167 mya and that none of the others you listed go back that far.
That is the current thinking based on the fossil evidence.
Your post contains lots of things that "could be" but then there is also a lot of unfound evidence that "could" further support what I am saying if we want to go beyond the fossil evidence.
Let's stay with what is known now and not indulge in what "could be".
What is known now supports what I have proposed.
"Those supposed mid jurassic "dromaeosaurs" are based on based on teeth which lack any identifying characteristics beyond "paraves", which means they could also be from a troodontid or some weird archaeopteryx-like thing, and since other teeth found in the formation were identified as being from ricardoestesia (which I highly doubt, given their age, but they could be a close relative of ricardoestesia), and ricardoestesia is another (poorly known) "paravian", these teeth only show that there were "paravians" present in the mid jurassic. The unnamed unit in which they were from is late bathonian (the very end of the middle jurassic), so it would be closer to 164 million years old, although I don't know how reliable the date is since it hasn't been named yet."
ReplyDeletedid you understand a single word I said?
Django, if you have nothing but silly sarcasm why are you using up your time here?
ReplyDeleteI'm confused. Before Anchiornis was discovered, how were scientists concluding that birds descended from dinosaurs? We know Archaeopteryx lived 150mya. Most of the "feathered dinosaurs" found in Liaoning Province are from ca 130mya. I'm curious as to why it was never proposed that perhaps the Liaoning specimens were descended from Archaeopteryx? Archaeopteryx appears in the fossil record with fully developed flight feathers indistinguishable from a modern birds. So perhaps this trait was passed down from an even more bird-like ancestor, and the Liaoning creatures are actually the "watered-down" versions if you will. Please clear this up, i find this incredibly fascinating just can't seem to understand the scientists reasoning.
ReplyDeleteThanks,
Chris
I do not agree with the dinosaur to bird theory.
ReplyDeleteI am not the right person to ask.
Keep in mind that the dino-to-bird folks no longer even think that Archaeoptryx was an ancestor of modern birds.
There is no evidence whatsoever, at all, that avialans are pterosaurs. How can you explain the feathered dinosaurs? the temporal paradox doesn't exist, some scansoriopterygids lived in the Middle Jurassic.
ReplyDeleteArchaeopteryx was a feathered dinosaur, but was not an Aves but an Avialae.
Hello Taylor.
ReplyDeleteHave you read the posts in this blog?
Yes, I have.
ReplyDeleteAlso, there are no transitional fossils between pterosaurs and birds, note that.
But there are transitionals between dinosaurs and birds... HMMM... I think that should get us somewhere.
Okay, look at my avatar image, its a Scansoriopteryx and its a dinosaur.
I know you want to take out the Maniraptoriformes and place it in the Pterosauria, but that seems just so wrong, because it is....
Phylogenetics disagree with anything that says dinosaurs didn't evolve into birds, as do characters.
My final point, pterosaurs have pycnofibres, dinosaurs even outside of the Maniraptoriformes have feathers and protofeathers.
Hello Taylor.
ReplyDeleteIf there is some specific post that I have made that you disagree with please tell me which one and why you disagree with it.
Manioraptors are saurischians,because they, like lizard-hipped saurischians, have very mobile digits.And no pterosaurs have filaments except Sordes.A few primitve ornithisitchian dinosaur have filaments. And other non-manioraptorans like tyrannosaurs have feathers. Pterosaurs had four phalanxes in their wing finger, while the alula has two.Chickens were made to regrow teeth and theylooked liked dino teeth. This blog is erroneous.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that tyrannosaurs are the ancestors of birds?
ReplyDeleteIf you wish to respond please include a made-up name next time.
Thanks.
Also if you are going to make assertions please include references that support your assertions.
And copy and paste what you think is the relevant material.
Pterosaur teeth are like bird teeth:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.pterosaur.co.uk/identify/teeth/teeth.htm
Most pterosaur teeth are relatively smooth with an oval section and no ridges. They tend to taper evenly to the tip and can be straight or gently curved along their length.
It is worth knowing that pterosaur material is rare and can command a good price on the market. Pterosaur teeth are also rare and it is unusual to find large quantities of them. Several other fossil species show similarities with pterosaur teeth, especially some juvenile crocodiles.
http://www.livescience.com/7051-surprise-chickens-grow-teeth.html
The researchers recently created more Talpids by tweaking the genes of normal chickens to grow teeth.
"What we discovered were [bird] teeth similar to those of crocodiles.."
Pterosaur teeth:
ReplyDeletehttp://1.bp.blogspot.com/_RdSbs0-97Pw/S5oAy1xtuxI/AAAAAAAAB2s/jYQ-GusuYVE/s400/PterosaurTeeth.jpg
http://www.pterosaur.co.uk/identify/teeth/teeth.htm
http://www.arizonaskiesmeteorites.com/Dinosaur_Fossils_For_Sale/Pterosaur_Fossils/Pterosaur_Tooth_1.jpg
Anonymous got it exactly backwards:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.jstor.org/pss/4085810
The structure of the avian tarsus has recently been cited as evidence for the derivation of birds from theropod dinosaurs. Although birds and theropods have a long triangular ossification in front of the tibia and attached to the proximal tarsals, the morphological relationships of this bone are fundamentally different in the two groups. In modern birds and in all Mesozoic birds, this "pretibial" bone is a high, narrow structure associated primarily with the calcaneum, but independently ossified. The corresponding structure in dinosaurs is a broad extension of the astragalus. Avian dentitions also pose a problem for the dinosaur hypothesis. While theropod teeth are serrated and have straight roots, avian teeth, like those of crocodilians, are unserrated, with constricted bases and expanded roots.
AVIAN DENTITIONS ALSO POSE A PROBLEM FOR THE DINOSAUR HYPOTHESIS.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how many times I have seen commenters assert something like what Anonymous did, only to find out that the reality is exactly the opposite of what they have asserted.
Look: Tianyulong has filaments!
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianyulong
Also look: Dilong, what you say is a dinosaur, looks more like manioraptorans than any Pterosaur!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilong_%28dinosaur%29
And more: Pterosaur teeth go straight, then bend, which bird teeth do not!
And next time quote me
Tianyolong is an ornithiscian. Are you thinking birds evolved from ornithiscians?
ReplyDeleteAlso
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianyulong
"The hollow filaments are parallel to each other and are singular with no evidence of branching. They also appear to be relatively rigid, making them more analogous to the integumentary structures found on the tail of Psittacosaurus[2] than to the proto-feather structures found in avian and non-avian theropods."
You seem to be supporting the idea that birds did not evolve from saurischian dinosaurs.
Why not consider that birds evolved from pterosaurs?
Also let me say again that the phrase "non-avian theropods" (in the Wikipedia quote) is not helpful.
ReplyDeleteIt lumps maniraptors (that are primitive birds) in with dinosaurs (that are not birds).
And to cap it all off, Psittacosaurus is an ornithiscian.
ReplyDeleteIt seems almost to be a rule.
ReplyDeleteWhenever anyone tries to be specific about the dino to bird theory they list Ornithischian dinosaurs.
BUT the dino to bird theory is that birds evolved from Saurischian dinosaurs.
The dino to bird theory does not even pass the simplest examination.