I'm not sure I believe its affinities can't be narrowed down further. While apparently not Apatosaurus (in which the abstract seems to include Brontosaurus) or Galeamopus, the newly exploded Morrison Diplodocidae leaves open numerous possible identifications- Supersaurus, Amphicoelias, Kaatedocus, Barosaurus, Diplodocus. Based on a braincase and anterior cervicals, it turns out to be a diplodocid.
![svp abstracts svp abstracts](https://vertpaleo.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/2021-Annual-Meeting-Logo-350x223-1.jpg)
Holotype of "Morosaurus" agilis (USNM 5384) posterior skull and anterior cervicals in left lateral view (after Gilmore, 1907).įinally, Whitlock and Wilson redescribe the hitherto enigmatic "Morosaurus" agilis. This should be a good paper once it's published. The genus emerges as a basal neornithischian. They find Stormbergia to be based on older individuals of Lesothosaurus, which as a lumper, does not surprise me. This is needed, as Sereno (1991) mostly described the skull and thus we've had to depend on Thulborn's work from 43 years ago. The Norman-Barrett team's on the basal ornithischian case again, this time with Baron et al.'s redescription of Lesothosaurus postcrania. Hu et al.'s new enantiornithine is said to have a Liaoningornis-like sternum, which could cement the affinities of that genus. This earlier horizon has otherwise only yielded Confuciusornis zhengi, Protopteryx, Eopengornis and Archaeornithura.
#SVP ABSTRACTS PLUS#
"Triisodontids" plus Mesonychia are closely related to a clade comprised of the arctocyonids Mimotricentes, Deuterogonodon and Chriacus." Ahhh, actual information.īesides the usual morass of Yixian and Jiufotang birds (including Parapengornis, which I think is just Pengornis), we get another specimen from the lower member of the Huajiying Formation.
![svp abstracts svp abstracts](https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/vn8AAOSwPhdVTluY/s-l300.jpg)
"Triisodontidae" forms a paraphyletic stem of Mesonychia with Oxyclaenus most closely related to a monophyletic Mesonychia. Second, actually describing the results of the study- "Our phylogenetic analysis places "triisodontids" as a basal member of Euungulata within Laurasiatheria. First, figuring out where all of those extinct mammal groups go using a molecular scaffold for the topology. Shelley et al.'s abstract is an example of two things I like. Is that affecting their relationships in my analyses? Microraptor and Archaeopteryx as single OTUs.
#SVP ABSTRACTS CODE#
It's concerning because being a lumper myself, I code e.g. This is presumably because PAUP/TNT finds it most parsimonious to choose a mix of states for the polymorphic characters that isn't found in any actual specimen. In the first, Haya emerged as a basal thescelosaurid, but in the second it was a basal neornithischian. The interesting thing here is that they performed two analyses- one with each specimen coded as a separate OTU, and the other with one Haya OTU that was coded as polymorphic when specimens differed. So that's another genus from your 1980s dino encyclopedias to dust off.Ĭontinuing the ornithischian train, Barta and Norell report on new specimens of Haya.
![svp abstracts svp abstracts](http://www.gamebra.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/e21d2c3fc43e67ce31c72111c426ba58-vs-bleach-300x225.jpg)
He finds Denversaurus is a valid taxon, sister to Panoplosaurus. We've had Arbour revise ankylosaurids, and now Burns is doing the same for Campanian-Maastrichtian North American nodosaurids. Otherwise it's just a tease and I learn nothing. I would ask that if your SVP abstract is based on a phylogenetic analysis, please devote at least a couple sentences to describing the topology you found. The most it says is that Protorosauria is para/polyphyletic, which everyone agrees with by now. Pritchard created a new matrix to test the relationships of Sauria, but alas this is one of those abstracts that doesn't actually contain much information.
![svp abstracts svp abstracts](http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/tmp/SVP-abstracts-2013-p12-PLOS-sauropod-gigantism.jpeg)
If the dinosaur abstracts are any indication, you could cut out a third of them by excluding those that will be published by September. I gather one of the big issues facing SVP is how many talks and papers there are, leading to greater expense, more parallel sessions, etc. Something I noticed about this year's and last year's abstracts is just how many of them are already published in official format by the time the meeting happens (yet another reason the embargo is silly).