Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Killing is stupid; useless! -- McCoy, "A Private Little War", stardate 4211.8


tech / sci.bio.paleontology / A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan

SubjectAuthor
* A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanPeter Nyikos
+* Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanGlenn
|`* Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanPeter Nyikos
| `* Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanJohn Harshman
|  +* Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanPeter Nyikos
|  |+- Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanOxyaena
|  |`- Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanJohn Harshman
|  +- Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanGlenn
|  `* Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanPeter Nyikos
|   `* Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanJohn Harshman
|    `* Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanPeter Nyikos
|     `* Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanJohn Harshman
|      +* Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanPeter Nyikos
|      |`* Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanJohn Harshman
|      | `* Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanPeter Nyikos
|      |  `* Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanJohn Harshman
|      |   `* Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanPeter Nyikos
|      |    `* Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanJohn Harshman
|      |     +* Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanPeter Nyikos
|      |     |`- Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanJohn Harshman
|      |     `* Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanPeter Nyikos
|      |      `* Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanJohn Harshman
|      |       +- Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanGlenn
|      |       `* Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanPeter Nyikos
|      |        +- Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanJohn Harshman
|      |        `* Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanOxyaena
|      |         `* Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanPeter Nyikos
|      |          `* Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanOxyaena
|      |           `* Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanGlenn
|      |            `* Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanJohn Harshman
|      |             `* Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanGlenn
|      |              `- Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanJohn Harshman
|      +* Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanPeter Nyikos
|      |`- Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanJohn Harshman
|      `* Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanPeter Nyikos
|       `* Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanJohn Harshman
|        `- Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanGlenn
`* Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanOxyaena
 +- Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanOxyaena
 `* Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanPeter Nyikos
  +* Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanGlenn
  |`- Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanPeter Nyikos
  `* Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanJohn Harshman
   `* Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanPeter Nyikos
    `- Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from UzbekistanJohn Harshman

Pages:12
A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan

<b61ad741-c82a-4a7b-a276-59b71946f6dbn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3393&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3393

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4c8f:: with SMTP id j15mr502362qtv.324.1631325452354;
Fri, 10 Sep 2021 18:57:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:6087:: with SMTP id u129mr825079ybb.513.1631325452066;
Fri, 10 Sep 2021 18:57:32 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 18:57:31 -0700 (PDT)
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:1700:48c9:290:f96f:f2be:800c:e9bb;
posting-account=MmaSmwoAAABAWoWNw3B4MhJqLSp3_9Ze
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:1700:48c9:290:f96f:f2be:800c:e9bb
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <b61ad741-c82a-4a7b-a276-59b71946f6dbn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan
From: peter2ny...@gmail.com (Peter Nyikos)
Injection-Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2021 01:57:32 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 75
 by: Peter Nyikos - Sat, 11 Sep 2021 01:57 UTC

Carcharodontosauria (shark-toothed saurians) were the last of the
allosaurids, found in Laurasia up to the end of the Turonian
(early Late Cretaceous) but surviving in Gondwana to the end of the Cretaceous.
In a role reversal from what I've been accustomed to, the largest of these allosaurids
were considerably larger than the largest tyrannosauroids of the time.

The "new" find is actually a rediscovery:

"The chunk of jawbone was found in Uzbekistan's Kyzylkum Desert in the 1980s, and researchers rediscovered it in 2019 in an Uzbekistan museum collection."
https://www.microsoftnewskids.com/en-us/kids/animals/gigantic-shark-toothed-dinosaur-discovered-in-uzbekistan/ar-AAOhazl?ocid=entnewsntp

The chunk is a partial maxilla, but from comparison with other
carcharodontosaurs, the following is hypothesized [*ibid*]:

"The 26-foot-long (8 meters) beast weighed 2,200 pounds (1,000 kilograms), making it longer than an African elephant and heavier than a bison. Researchers named it *Ulughbegsaurus* *uzbekistanensis*, after Ulugh Beg, a 15th-century astronomer, mathematician and sultan from what is now Uzbekistan.

"What caught scientists by surprise was that the dinosaur was much larger — twice the length and more than five times heavier — than its ecosystem's previously known apex predator: a tyrannosaur, the researchers found."

That should probably be "tyrannosauroid," but as you can see from the url,
this article was chosen [from "Live Science"] with kids in mind as a hefty part
of the audience; there is a suitable picture at the top of the article to go with that.

The research paper on which it is based is free access:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.210923

I relied on it for my opening paragraph, but this being late Friday here,
I am quoting from the popularization from here on.

"The two dinosaur groups were fairly similar, but carcharodontosaurs were generally more slender and lightly-built than the heavyset tyrannosaurs, said study co-researcher Darla Zelenitsky, an associate professor of paleobiology at the University of Calgary. Even so, carcharodontosaurs were usually larger than tyrannosaur dinosaurs, reaching weights greater than 13,200 pounds (6,000 kg)."

Here too, "tyrannosauroid" is more precise, while "tyrannosaurid" is
the most precise term in the next sentence:

"Then, around 90 million to 80 million years ago, the carcharodontosaurs disappeared and the tyrannosaurs grew in size, taking over as apex predators in Asia and North America. "

"The new finding is the first carcharodontosaur dinosaur discovered in Central Asia, the researchers noted. Paleontologists already knew that the tyrannosaur *Timurlengia* lived at the same time and place, but at 13 feet (4 m) in length and about 375 pounds (170 kg) in weight, *Timurlengia* was several times smaller than *U. uzbekistanensis*, suggesting that *U. uzbekistanensis* was the apex predator in that ecosystem, gobbling up horned dinosaurs, long-necked sauropods and ostrich-like dinosaurs in the neighborhood, the team said."

Methinks that the part from "gobbling up..." on was inspired by
"The Land Before Time" cartoon series. My daughters each saw
the first two at a tender age, and were very fond of them.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan

<2960ba6e-ec72-4279-9674-446d87887edfn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3396&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3396

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
X-Received: by 2002:a37:8f01:: with SMTP id r1mr628146qkd.452.1631332630332;
Fri, 10 Sep 2021 20:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:c753:: with SMTP id w80mr1348663ybe.245.1631332630063;
Fri, 10 Sep 2021 20:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 20:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <b61ad741-c82a-4a7b-a276-59b71946f6dbn@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.209.218.114; posting-account=LTsYjwkAAACi9EOosr8cUsLvEqpGlJoX
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.209.218.114
References: <b61ad741-c82a-4a7b-a276-59b71946f6dbn@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2960ba6e-ec72-4279-9674-446d87887edfn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan
From: GlennShe...@msn.com (Glenn)
Injection-Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2021 03:57:10 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 81
 by: Glenn - Sat, 11 Sep 2021 03:57 UTC

On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 6:57:32 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> Carcharodontosauria (shark-toothed saurians) were the last of the
> allosaurids, found in Laurasia up to the end of the Turonian
> (early Late Cretaceous) but surviving in Gondwana to the end of the Cretaceous.
> In a role reversal from what I've been accustomed to, the largest of these allosaurids
> were considerably larger than the largest tyrannosauroids of the time.
>
> The "new" find is actually a rediscovery:
>
> "The chunk of jawbone was found in Uzbekistan's Kyzylkum Desert in the 1980s, and researchers rediscovered it in 2019 in an Uzbekistan museum collection."
> https://www.microsoftnewskids.com/en-us/kids/animals/gigantic-shark-toothed-dinosaur-discovered-in-uzbekistan/ar-AAOhazl?ocid=entnewsntp
>
> The chunk is a partial maxilla, but from comparison with other
> carcharodontosaurs, the following is hypothesized [*ibid*]:
>
> "The 26-foot-long (8 meters) beast weighed 2,200 pounds (1,000 kilograms), making it longer than an African elephant and heavier than a bison. Researchers named it *Ulughbegsaurus* *uzbekistanensis*, after Ulugh Beg, a 15th-century astronomer, mathematician and sultan from what is now Uzbekistan.
>
> "What caught scientists by surprise was that the dinosaur was much larger — twice the length and more than five times heavier — than its ecosystem's previously known apex predator: a tyrannosaur, the researchers found."
>
> That should probably be "tyrannosauroid," but as you can see from the url,
> this article was chosen [from "Live Science"] with kids in mind as a hefty part
> of the audience; there is a suitable picture at the top of the article to go with that.
>
> The research paper on which it is based is free access:
> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.210923
>
> I relied on it for my opening paragraph, but this being late Friday here,
> I am quoting from the popularization from here on.
>
> "The two dinosaur groups were fairly similar, but carcharodontosaurs were generally more slender and lightly-built than the heavyset tyrannosaurs, said study co-researcher Darla Zelenitsky, an associate professor of paleobiology at the University of Calgary. Even so, carcharodontosaurs were usually larger than tyrannosaur dinosaurs, reaching weights greater than 13,200 pounds (6,000 kg)."
>
> Here too, "tyrannosauroid" is more precise, while "tyrannosaurid" is
> the most precise term in the next sentence:
>
> "Then, around 90 million to 80 million years ago, the carcharodontosaurs disappeared and the tyrannosaurs grew in size, taking over as apex predators in Asia and North America. "
>
> "The new finding is the first carcharodontosaur dinosaur discovered in Central Asia, the researchers noted. Paleontologists already knew that the tyrannosaur *Timurlengia* lived at the same time and place, but at 13 feet (4 m) in length and about 375 pounds (170 kg) in weight, *Timurlengia* was several times smaller than *U. uzbekistanensis*, suggesting that *U. uzbekistanensis* was the apex predator in that ecosystem, gobbling up horned dinosaurs, long-necked sauropods and ostrich-like dinosaurs in the neighborhood, the team said."
>
>
> Methinks that the part from "gobbling up..." on was inspired by
> "The Land Before Time" cartoon series. My daughters each saw
> the first two at a tender age, and were very fond of them.
>
>
From the paper, "The contact surface for the premaxilla is not preserved due to damage at the anterior margin of the maxilla, where the first alveolus is broken and exposes an implanted tooth. "

Implanted?

Looks like a rock that someone took a dremel tool to. Allegedly in some basement in Russia for 30+ years, without documentation of where found...

Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan

<shmbkc$tdh$1@solani.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3400&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3400

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!reader5.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: oxya...@invalid.invalid (Oxyaena)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Subject: Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2021 22:04:56 -0400
Message-ID: <shmbkc$tdh$1@solani.org>
References: <b61ad741-c82a-4a7b-a276-59b71946f6dbn@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 02:05:00 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: solani.org;
logging-data="30129"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.14.0
Content-Language: en-US
Cancel-Lock: sha1:pvtMEbLSBR3NVq9HP3WC2TY+yl4=
In-Reply-To: <b61ad741-c82a-4a7b-a276-59b71946f6dbn@googlegroups.com>
X-User-ID: eJwFwQEBACAIA7BKCP5oHEHfP4IbgoOdk+CEoMUaz5a56H3N2hHXBfQJ9cPJ07kBMtxS2nu+UelVgqPXB0wFFWM=
 by: Oxyaena - Mon, 13 Sep 2021 02:04 UTC

On 9/10/2021 9:57 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> Carcharodontosauria (shark-toothed saurians) were the last of the
> allosaurids, found in Laurasia up to the end of the Turonian
> (early Late Cretaceous) but surviving in Gondwana to the end of the Cretaceous.
> In a role reversal from what I've been accustomed to, the largest of these allosaurids
> were considerably larger than the largest tyrannosauroids of the time.
>
> The "new" find is actually a rediscovery:
>
> "The chunk of jawbone was found in Uzbekistan's Kyzylkum Desert in the 1980s, and researchers rediscovered it in 2019 in an Uzbekistan museum collection."
> https://www.microsoftnewskids.com/en-us/kids/animals/gigantic-shark-toothed-dinosaur-discovered-in-uzbekistan/ar-AAOhazl?ocid=entnewsntp
>
> The chunk is a partial maxilla, but from comparison with other
> carcharodontosaurs, the following is hypothesized [*ibid*]:
>
> "The 26-foot-long (8 meters) beast weighed 2,200 pounds (1,000 kilograms), making it longer than an African elephant and heavier than a bison. Researchers named it *Ulughbegsaurus* *uzbekistanensis*, after Ulugh Beg, a 15th-century astronomer, mathematician and sultan from what is now Uzbekistan.

The reason dinosaurs were larger and yet lighter than even mammals today
is because of their respiratory systems. Birds inherited their famous
respiratory systems from somewhere, you know. Pound for pound in a
confrontation between a dinosaur and a mammal of equivalent size and
weight the dinosaur would hands down. I know you have an irrational
fondness for Fedducia's bullshit, but even you must admit that the
scientific consensus that birds are dinosaurs is and was correct.

>
> "What caught scientists by surprise was that the dinosaur was much larger — twice the length and more than five times heavier — than its ecosystem's previously known apex predator: a tyrannosaur, the researchers found."
>
> That should probably be "tyrannosauroid," but as you can see from the url,
> this article was chosen [from "Live Science"] with kids in mind as a hefty part
> of the audience; there is a suitable picture at the top of the article to go with that.
>
> The research paper on which it is based is free access:
> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.210923
>
> I relied on it for my opening paragraph, but this being late Friday here,
> I am quoting from the popularization from here on.
>
> "The two dinosaur groups were fairly similar, but carcharodontosaurs were generally more slender and lightly-built than the heavyset tyrannosaurs, said study co-researcher Darla Zelenitsky, an associate professor of paleobiology at the University of Calgary. Even so, carcharodontosaurs were usually larger than tyrannosaur dinosaurs, reaching weights greater than 13,200 pounds (6,000 kg)."
>
> Here too, "tyrannosauroid" is more precise, while "tyrannosaurid" is
> the most precise term in the next sentence:
>
> "Then, around 90 million to 80 million years ago, the carcharodontosaurs disappeared and the tyrannosaurs grew in size, taking over as apex predators in Asia and North America."
>
> "The new finding is the first carcharodontosaur dinosaur discovered in Central Asia, the researchers noted. Paleontologists already knew that the tyrannosaur *Timurlengia* lived at the same time and place, but at 13 feet (4 m) in length and about 375 pounds (170 kg) in weight, *Timurlengia* was several times smaller than *U. uzbekistanensis*, suggesting that *U. uzbekistanensis* was the apex predator in that ecosystem, gobbling up horned dinosaurs, long-necked sauropods and ostrich-like dinosaurs in the neighborhood, the team said."
>
>
> Methinks that the part from "gobbling up..." on was inspired by
> "The Land Before Time" cartoon series. My daughters each saw
> the first two at a tender age, and were very fond of them.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>

Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan

<shmbls$tdh$2@solani.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3401&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3401

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!reader5.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: oxya...@invalid.invalid (Oxyaena)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Subject: Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2021 22:05:46 -0400
Message-ID: <shmbls$tdh$2@solani.org>
References: <b61ad741-c82a-4a7b-a276-59b71946f6dbn@googlegroups.com>
<shmbkc$tdh$1@solani.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 02:05:48 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: solani.org;
logging-data="30129"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.14.0
Content-Language: en-US
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6YEBBXV8aJt6WVQ/H2VCTojAKeY=
X-User-ID: eJwNycEBAyEMA7CVYoIdOg4Gsv8IV33FFHRqipps9m+fBIS3h9Ee7wTCrVvqxbUeK686hokdVNTNf9Gwe0x/VLsVfQ==
In-Reply-To: <shmbkc$tdh$1@solani.org>
 by: Oxyaena - Mon, 13 Sep 2021 02:05 UTC

On 9/12/2021 10:04 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 9/10/2021 9:57 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>   Carcharodontosauria (shark-toothed saurians) were the last of the
>> allosaurids,  found in Laurasia up to the end of the Turonian
>> (early Late Cretaceous) but surviving in Gondwana to the end of the
>> Cretaceous.
>> In a role reversal from what I've been accustomed to, the largest of
>> these allosaurids
>>   were considerably larger than the largest tyrannosauroids of the time.
>>
>> The "new" find is actually a rediscovery:
>>
>> "The chunk of jawbone was found in Uzbekistan's Kyzylkum Desert in the
>> 1980s, and researchers rediscovered it in 2019 in an Uzbekistan museum
>> collection."
>> https://www.microsoftnewskids.com/en-us/kids/animals/gigantic-shark-toothed-dinosaur-discovered-in-uzbekistan/ar-AAOhazl?ocid=entnewsntp
>>
>>
>> The chunk is a partial maxilla, but from comparison with other
>> carcharodontosaurs, the following is hypothesized [*ibid*]:
>>
>> "The 26-foot-long (8 meters) beast weighed 2,200 pounds (1,000
>> kilograms), making it longer than an African elephant and heavier than
>> a bison. Researchers named it *Ulughbegsaurus* *uzbekistanensis*,
>> after Ulugh Beg, a 15th-century astronomer, mathematician and sultan
>> from what is now Uzbekistan.
>
> The reason dinosaurs were larger and yet lighter than even mammals today
> is because of their respiratory systems. Birds inherited their famous
> respiratory systems from somewhere, you know. Pound for pound in a
> confrontation between a dinosaur and a mammal of equivalent size and
> weight the dinosaur would hands down.

That should be "the dinosaur would win hands down." Mea culpa.

> I know you have an irrational
> fondness for Fedducia's bullshit, but even you must admit that the
> scientific consensus that birds are dinosaurs is and was correct.
>
>>
>> "What caught scientists by surprise was that the dinosaur was much
>> larger — twice the length and more than five times heavier — than its
>> ecosystem's previously known apex predator: a tyrannosaur, the
>> researchers found."
>>
>> That should probably be "tyrannosauroid," but as you can see from the
>> url,
>> this article was chosen [from "Live Science"] with kids in mind as a
>> hefty part
>> of the audience; there is a suitable picture at the top of the article
>> to go with that.
>>
>> The research paper on which it is based is free access:
>> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.210923
>> I relied on it for my opening paragraph, but this being late Friday here,
>> I am quoting from the popularization from here on.
>>
>> "The two dinosaur groups were fairly similar, but carcharodontosaurs
>> were generally more slender and lightly-built than the heavyset
>> tyrannosaurs, said study co-researcher Darla Zelenitsky, an associate
>> professor of paleobiology at the University of Calgary. Even so,
>> carcharodontosaurs were usually larger than tyrannosaur dinosaurs,
>> reaching weights greater than 13,200 pounds (6,000 kg)."
>>
>> Here too, "tyrannosauroid" is more precise, while "tyrannosaurid" is
>> the most precise term in the next sentence:
>>
>> "Then, around 90 million to 80 million years ago, the
>> carcharodontosaurs disappeared and the tyrannosaurs grew in size,
>> taking over as apex predators in Asia and North America."
>>
>> "The new finding is the first carcharodontosaur dinosaur discovered in
>> Central Asia, the researchers noted. Paleontologists already knew that
>> the tyrannosaur *Timurlengia* lived at the same time and place, but at
>> 13 feet (4 m) in length and about 375 pounds (170 kg) in weight,
>> *Timurlengia* was several times smaller than *U. uzbekistanensis*,
>> suggesting that *U. uzbekistanensis* was the apex predator in that
>> ecosystem, gobbling up horned dinosaurs, long-necked sauropods and
>> ostrich-like dinosaurs in the neighborhood, the team said."
>>
>>
>> Methinks that the part from "gobbling up..." on was inspired by
>> "The Land Before Time" cartoon series. My daughters each saw
>> the first two at a tender age, and were very fond of them.
>>
>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics   -- standard disclaimer--
>> University of South Carolina
>> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>>
>

Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan

<93e86fc0-15ed-474e-8661-afc5c06a3520n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3408&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3408

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:4671:: with SMTP id z17mr10308257qvv.62.1631539971429;
Mon, 13 Sep 2021 06:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:d054:: with SMTP id h81mr14796918ybg.411.1631539971266;
Mon, 13 Sep 2021 06:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 06:32:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2960ba6e-ec72-4279-9674-446d87887edfn@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:1700:48c9:290:6959:506c:6628:6ff6;
posting-account=MmaSmwoAAABAWoWNw3B4MhJqLSp3_9Ze
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:1700:48c9:290:6959:506c:6628:6ff6
References: <b61ad741-c82a-4a7b-a276-59b71946f6dbn@googlegroups.com> <2960ba6e-ec72-4279-9674-446d87887edfn@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <93e86fc0-15ed-474e-8661-afc5c06a3520n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan
From: peter2ny...@gmail.com (Peter Nyikos)
Injection-Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 13:32:51 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 122
 by: Peter Nyikos - Mon, 13 Sep 2021 13:32 UTC

On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 11:57:10 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 6:57:32 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > Carcharodontosauria (shark-toothed saurians) were the last of the
> > allosaurids, found in Laurasia up to the end of the Turonian
> > (early Late Cretaceous) but surviving in Gondwana to the end of the Cretaceous.
> > In a role reversal from what I've been accustomed to, the largest of these allosaurids
> > were considerably larger than the largest tyrannosauroids of the time.
> >
> > The "new" find is actually a rediscovery:
> >
> > "The chunk of jawbone was found in Uzbekistan's Kyzylkum Desert in the 1980s, and researchers rediscovered it in 2019 in an Uzbekistan museum collection."
> > https://www.microsoftnewskids.com/en-us/kids/animals/gigantic-shark-toothed-dinosaur-discovered-in-uzbekistan/ar-AAOhazl?ocid=entnewsntp
> >
> > The chunk is a partial maxilla, but from comparison with other
> > carcharodontosaurs, the following is hypothesized [*ibid*]:
> >
> > "The 26-foot-long (8 meters) beast weighed 2,200 pounds (1,000 kilograms), making it longer than an African elephant and heavier than a bison. Researchers named it *Ulughbegsaurus* *uzbekistanensis*, after Ulugh Beg, a 15th-century astronomer, mathematician and sultan from what is now Uzbekistan..
> >
> > "What caught scientists by surprise was that the dinosaur was much larger — twice the length and more than five times heavier — than its ecosystem's previously known apex predator: a tyrannosaur, the researchers found."
> >
> > That should probably be "tyrannosauroid," but as you can see from the url,
> > this article was chosen [from "Live Science"] with kids in mind as a hefty part
> > of the audience; there is a suitable picture at the top of the article to go with that.
> >
> > The research paper on which it is based is free access:
> > https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.210923
> >
> > I relied on it for my opening paragraph, but this being late Friday here,
> > I am quoting from the popularization from here on.
> >
> > "The two dinosaur groups were fairly similar, but carcharodontosaurs were generally more slender and lightly-built than the heavyset tyrannosaurs, said study co-researcher Darla Zelenitsky, an associate professor of paleobiology at the University of Calgary. Even so, carcharodontosaurs were usually larger than tyrannosaur dinosaurs, reaching weights greater than 13,200 pounds (6,000 kg)."
> >
> > Here too, "tyrannosauroid" is more precise, while "tyrannosaurid" is
> > the most precise term in the next sentence:
> >
> > "Then, around 90 million to 80 million years ago, the carcharodontosaurs disappeared and the tyrannosaurs grew in size, taking over as apex predators in Asia and North America. "
> >
> > "The new finding is the first carcharodontosaur dinosaur discovered in Central Asia, the researchers noted. Paleontologists already knew that the tyrannosaur *Timurlengia* lived at the same time and place, but at 13 feet (4 m) in length and about 375 pounds (170 kg) in weight, *Timurlengia* was several times smaller than *U. uzbekistanensis*, suggesting that *U. uzbekistanensis* was the apex predator in that ecosystem, gobbling up horned dinosaurs, long-necked sauropods and ostrich-like dinosaurs in the neighborhood, the team said."
> >
> >
> > Methinks that the part from "gobbling up..." on was inspired by
> > "The Land Before Time" cartoon series. My daughters each saw
> > the first two at a tender age, and were very fond of them.
> >
> >
> From the paper, "The contact surface for the premaxilla is not preserved due to damage at the anterior margin of the maxilla, where the first alveolus is broken and exposes an implanted tooth. "
>
> Implanted?

I'm pretty sure that the word the authors were looking for is "impacted."

That reminds me of a sore point between me and John Harshman. Mario and I had been discussing
the issue of how reliable IQ tests are, and I had used the following analogy as an example
of how a lot of IQ test questions measure vocabulary more [in the following case, at least ten times more]
than they do intelligence.

sea : littoral : : river : ___________

Turns out Mario didn't even know what the colons were all about, and before I
could tell him, Harshman explained that it was an analogy, and immediately spoiled
the riddle for him by saying that he thought "The word Peter is looking for is ..."

But I won't spoil the riddle for YOU just yet.

Now Harshman has gone to the opposite extreme, refusing to talk to Mario
about anything, using the half-truth that Mario is a "Nazi" as an excuse.

> Looks like a rock that someone took a dremel tool to. Allegedly in some basement in Russia

Correction: Soviet Union

> for 30+ years, without documentation of where found...

I take it that you looked carefully in the research article for any hint of that.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan

<vqWdnbYnmN-0-aL8nZ2dnUU7-a_NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3409&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3409

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 09:46:01 -0500
Subject: Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
References: <b61ad741-c82a-4a7b-a276-59b71946f6dbn@googlegroups.com>
<2960ba6e-ec72-4279-9674-446d87887edfn@googlegroups.com>
<93e86fc0-15ed-474e-8661-afc5c06a3520n@googlegroups.com>
From: jharsh...@pacbell.net (John Harshman)
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 07:46:00 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <93e86fc0-15ed-474e-8661-afc5c06a3520n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <vqWdnbYnmN-0-aL8nZ2dnUU7-a_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 96
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-kQ57Fa1qyH+pTcH4n5LgLod7BOtCuZwY0MSk8L6wYu4mTwlbMOicETgDXeGewg9ZRMznmp3r+/yMEeP!w8i8ui3Jz/5p1M4k/z+sd81shNg1ADlX0SUso2YjXmw5L1vACwQFjLWbqJEvV1q0WAApcw674P0=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 7008
 by: John Harshman - Mon, 13 Sep 2021 14:46 UTC

On 9/13/21 6:32 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 11:57:10 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
>> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 6:57:32 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> Carcharodontosauria (shark-toothed saurians) were the last of the
>>> allosaurids, found in Laurasia up to the end of the Turonian
>>> (early Late Cretaceous) but surviving in Gondwana to the end of the Cretaceous.
>>> In a role reversal from what I've been accustomed to, the largest of these allosaurids
>>> were considerably larger than the largest tyrannosauroids of the time.
>>>
>>> The "new" find is actually a rediscovery:
>>>
>>> "The chunk of jawbone was found in Uzbekistan's Kyzylkum Desert in the 1980s, and researchers rediscovered it in 2019 in an Uzbekistan museum collection."
>>> https://www.microsoftnewskids.com/en-us/kids/animals/gigantic-shark-toothed-dinosaur-discovered-in-uzbekistan/ar-AAOhazl?ocid=entnewsntp
>>>
>>> The chunk is a partial maxilla, but from comparison with other
>>> carcharodontosaurs, the following is hypothesized [*ibid*]:
>>>
>>> "The 26-foot-long (8 meters) beast weighed 2,200 pounds (1,000 kilograms), making it longer than an African elephant and heavier than a bison. Researchers named it *Ulughbegsaurus* *uzbekistanensis*, after Ulugh Beg, a 15th-century astronomer, mathematician and sultan from what is now Uzbekistan.
>>>
>>> "What caught scientists by surprise was that the dinosaur was much larger — twice the length and more than five times heavier — than its ecosystem's previously known apex predator: a tyrannosaur, the researchers found."
>>>
>>> That should probably be "tyrannosauroid," but as you can see from the url,
>>> this article was chosen [from "Live Science"] with kids in mind as a hefty part
>>> of the audience; there is a suitable picture at the top of the article to go with that.
>>>
>>> The research paper on which it is based is free access:
>>> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.210923
>>>
>>> I relied on it for my opening paragraph, but this being late Friday here,
>>> I am quoting from the popularization from here on.
>>>
>>> "The two dinosaur groups were fairly similar, but carcharodontosaurs were generally more slender and lightly-built than the heavyset tyrannosaurs, said study co-researcher Darla Zelenitsky, an associate professor of paleobiology at the University of Calgary. Even so, carcharodontosaurs were usually larger than tyrannosaur dinosaurs, reaching weights greater than 13,200 pounds (6,000 kg)."
>>>
>>> Here too, "tyrannosauroid" is more precise, while "tyrannosaurid" is
>>> the most precise term in the next sentence:
>>>
>>> "Then, around 90 million to 80 million years ago, the carcharodontosaurs disappeared and the tyrannosaurs grew in size, taking over as apex predators in Asia and North America. "
>>>
>>> "The new finding is the first carcharodontosaur dinosaur discovered in Central Asia, the researchers noted. Paleontologists already knew that the tyrannosaur *Timurlengia* lived at the same time and place, but at 13 feet (4 m) in length and about 375 pounds (170 kg) in weight, *Timurlengia* was several times smaller than *U. uzbekistanensis*, suggesting that *U. uzbekistanensis* was the apex predator in that ecosystem, gobbling up horned dinosaurs, long-necked sauropods and ostrich-like dinosaurs in the neighborhood, the team said."
>>>
>>>
>>> Methinks that the part from "gobbling up..." on was inspired by
>>> "The Land Before Time" cartoon series. My daughters each saw
>>> the first two at a tender age, and were very fond of them.
>>>
>>>
>> From the paper, "The contact surface for the premaxilla is not preserved due to damage at the anterior margin of the maxilla, where the first alveolus is broken and exposes an implanted tooth. "
>>
>> Implanted?
>
> I'm pretty sure that the word the authors were looking for is "impacted."

I think they mean "implanted", likely a new tooth that was yet to emerge
from the jaw.

> That reminds me of a sore point between me and John Harshman.

Why do you feel it necessary to keep talking about your old grievances?

> Mario and I had been discussing
> the issue of how reliable IQ tests are, and I had used the following analogy as an example
> of how a lot of IQ test questions measure vocabulary more [in the following case, at least ten times more]
> than they do intelligence.
>
> sea : littoral : : river : ___________
>
> Turns out Mario didn't even know what the colons were all about, and before I
> could tell him, Harshman explained that it was an analogy, and immediately spoiled
> the riddle for him by saying that he thought "The word Peter is looking for is ..."
>
> But I won't spoil the riddle for YOU just yet.
>
>
> Now Harshman has gone to the opposite extreme, refusing to talk to Mario
> about anything, using the half-truth that Mario is a "Nazi" as an excuse.

Half-truth? He's a virulent anti-semite who proposes that jews be
exterminated, not to mention various other so far unnamed groups. Sure,
he is not literally a member of the NSDAP, but of course that
organization is defunct.

>> Looks like a rock that someone took a dremel tool to. Allegedly in some basement in Russia
>
> Correction: Soviet Union
>
>> for 30+ years, without documentation of where found...
>
> I take it that you looked carefully in the research article for any hint of that.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>

Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan

<40b6869b-0d3b-4089-a9a1-e98dc00f1003n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3410&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3410

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:4567:: with SMTP id o7mr58747qvu.57.1631546129872;
Mon, 13 Sep 2021 08:15:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a5b:612:: with SMTP id d18mr17323229ybq.113.1631546129673;
Mon, 13 Sep 2021 08:15:29 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 08:15:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <vqWdnbYnmN-0-aL8nZ2dnUU7-a_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=129.252.33.36; posting-account=MmaSmwoAAABAWoWNw3B4MhJqLSp3_9Ze
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.252.33.36
References: <b61ad741-c82a-4a7b-a276-59b71946f6dbn@googlegroups.com>
<2960ba6e-ec72-4279-9674-446d87887edfn@googlegroups.com> <93e86fc0-15ed-474e-8661-afc5c06a3520n@googlegroups.com>
<vqWdnbYnmN-0-aL8nZ2dnUU7-a_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <40b6869b-0d3b-4089-a9a1-e98dc00f1003n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan
From: peter2ny...@gmail.com (Peter Nyikos)
Injection-Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 15:15:29 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 171
 by: Peter Nyikos - Mon, 13 Sep 2021 15:15 UTC

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:46:07 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/13/21 6:32 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 11:57:10 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> >> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 6:57:32 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> Carcharodontosauria (shark-toothed saurians) were the last of the
> >>> allosaurids, found in Laurasia up to the end of the Turonian
> >>> (early Late Cretaceous) but surviving in Gondwana to the end of the Cretaceous.
> >>> In a role reversal from what I've been accustomed to, the largest of these allosaurids
> >>> were considerably larger than the largest tyrannosauroids of the time..
> >>>
> >>> The "new" find is actually a rediscovery:
> >>>
> >>> "The chunk of jawbone was found in Uzbekistan's Kyzylkum Desert in the 1980s, and researchers rediscovered it in 2019 in an Uzbekistan museum collection."
> >>> https://www.microsoftnewskids.com/en-us/kids/animals/gigantic-shark-toothed-dinosaur-discovered-in-uzbekistan/ar-AAOhazl?ocid=entnewsntp
> >>>
> >>> The chunk is a partial maxilla, but from comparison with other
> >>> carcharodontosaurs, the following is hypothesized [*ibid*]:
> >>>
> >>> "The 26-foot-long (8 meters) beast weighed 2,200 pounds (1,000 kilograms), making it longer than an African elephant and heavier than a bison. Researchers named it *Ulughbegsaurus* *uzbekistanensis*, after Ulugh Beg, a 15th-century astronomer, mathematician and sultan from what is now Uzbekistan.
> >>>
> >>> "What caught scientists by surprise was that the dinosaur was much larger — twice the length and more than five times heavier — than its ecosystem's previously known apex predator: a tyrannosaur, the researchers found."
> >>>
> >>> That should probably be "tyrannosauroid," but as you can see from the url,
> >>> this article was chosen [from "Live Science"] with kids in mind as a hefty part
> >>> of the audience; there is a suitable picture at the top of the article to go with that.
> >>>
> >>> The research paper on which it is based is free access:
> >>> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.210923
> >>>
> >>> I relied on it for my opening paragraph, but this being late Friday here,
> >>> I am quoting from the popularization from here on.
> >>>
> >>> "The two dinosaur groups were fairly similar, but carcharodontosaurs were generally more slender and lightly-built than the heavyset tyrannosaurs, said study co-researcher Darla Zelenitsky, an associate professor of paleobiology at the University of Calgary. Even so, carcharodontosaurs were usually larger than tyrannosaur dinosaurs, reaching weights greater than 13,200 pounds (6,000 kg)."
> >>>
> >>> Here too, "tyrannosauroid" is more precise, while "tyrannosaurid" is
> >>> the most precise term in the next sentence:
> >>>
> >>> "Then, around 90 million to 80 million years ago, the carcharodontosaurs disappeared and the tyrannosaurs grew in size, taking over as apex predators in Asia and North America. "
> >>>
> >>> "The new finding is the first carcharodontosaur dinosaur discovered in Central Asia, the researchers noted. Paleontologists already knew that the tyrannosaur *Timurlengia* lived at the same time and place, but at 13 feet (4 m) in length and about 375 pounds (170 kg) in weight, *Timurlengia* was several times smaller than *U. uzbekistanensis*, suggesting that *U. uzbekistanensis* was the apex predator in that ecosystem, gobbling up horned dinosaurs, long-necked sauropods and ostrich-like dinosaurs in the neighborhood, the team said."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Methinks that the part from "gobbling up..." on was inspired by
> >>> "The Land Before Time" cartoon series. My daughters each saw
> >>> the first two at a tender age, and were very fond of them.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> From the paper, "The contact surface for the premaxilla is not preserved due to damage at the anterior margin of the maxilla, where the first alveolus is broken and exposes an implanted tooth. "
> >>
> >> Implanted?
> >
> > I'm pretty sure that the word the authors were looking for is "impacted.."
> I think they mean "implanted", likely a new tooth that was yet to emerge
> from the jaw.

> > That reminds me of a sore point between me and John Harshman.

> Why do you feel it necessary to keep talking about your old grievances?

Why do you use the word "old"? Don't you hang on Harshman's every word here in s.b.p.?

And why do you feel it necessary to show that you are slavishly Harshman-serving
and Harshman-aping?

> > Mario and I had been discussing
> > the issue of how reliable IQ tests are, and I had used the following analogy as an example
> > of how a lot of IQ test questions measure vocabulary more [in the following case, at least ten times more]
> > than they do intelligence.
> >
> > sea : littoral : : river : ___________
> >
> > Turns out Mario didn't even know what the colons were all about, and before I
> > could tell him, Harshman explained that it was an analogy, and immediately spoiled
> > the riddle for him by saying that he thought "The word Peter is looking for is ..."
> >
> > But I won't spoil the riddle for YOU just yet.
> >
> >
> > Now Harshman has gone to the opposite extreme, refusing to talk to Mario
> > about anything, using the half-truth that Mario is a "Nazi" as an excuse.

> Half-truth? He's a virulent anti-semite who proposes that jews be
> exterminated, not to mention various other so far unnamed groups.

That's the truthful half of the half-truth.

Looks like you are revealing how clueless you are about what Nazism was, and is.

Are you equally clueless about what Stalinism was? Did you know that there is a major
resurgence of it in Russia? If so, do you give a hoot about it?

> Sure, he is not literally a member of the NSDAP, but of course that
> organization is defunct.

More evidence of your cluelessness.

How old are you, anyway? How is it that you display so little awareness
of what constitutes Nazism?

> >> Looks like a rock that someone took a dremel tool to. Allegedly in some basement in Russia
> >
> > Correction: Soviet Union
> >
> >> for 30+ years, without documentation of where found...
> >
> > I take it that you looked carefully in the research article for any hint of that.

No interest in this on-topic issue, Thrinaxodon?

Peter Nyikos

> >
> > Peter Nyikos
> > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
> > http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> >

Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan

<shnu3f$ojf$1@solani.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3411&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3411

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!reader5.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: oxya...@invalid.invalid (Oxyaena)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Subject: Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 12:26:22 -0400
Message-ID: <shnu3f$ojf$1@solani.org>
References: <b61ad741-c82a-4a7b-a276-59b71946f6dbn@googlegroups.com>
<2960ba6e-ec72-4279-9674-446d87887edfn@googlegroups.com>
<93e86fc0-15ed-474e-8661-afc5c06a3520n@googlegroups.com>
<vqWdnbYnmN-0-aL8nZ2dnUU7-a_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<40b6869b-0d3b-4089-a9a1-e98dc00f1003n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 16:26:23 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: solani.org;
logging-data="25199"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.14.0
Content-Language: en-US
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Z1n7pPOXUYm00CbvG3tGX2wsmMo=
X-User-ID: eJwFwQERADEIAzBLD6wtkwMc8y/hEwSNo0Pw4OHtEo5pNvpmyhDQtfRMw7LioUbjF5KP1/S3OmtQVGDxAzhDFLk=
In-Reply-To: <40b6869b-0d3b-4089-a9a1-e98dc00f1003n@googlegroups.com>
 by: Oxyaena - Mon, 13 Sep 2021 16:26 UTC

On 9/13/2021 11:15 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:46:07 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/13/21 6:32 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 11:57:10 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
>>>> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 6:57:32 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> Carcharodontosauria (shark-toothed saurians) were the last of the
>>>>> allosaurids, found in Laurasia up to the end of the Turonian
>>>>> (early Late Cretaceous) but surviving in Gondwana to the end of the Cretaceous.
>>>>> In a role reversal from what I've been accustomed to, the largest of these allosaurids
>>>>> were considerably larger than the largest tyrannosauroids of the time.
>>>>>
>>>>> The "new" find is actually a rediscovery:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The chunk of jawbone was found in Uzbekistan's Kyzylkum Desert in the 1980s, and researchers rediscovered it in 2019 in an Uzbekistan museum collection."
>>>>> https://www.microsoftnewskids.com/en-us/kids/animals/gigantic-shark-toothed-dinosaur-discovered-in-uzbekistan/ar-AAOhazl?ocid=entnewsntp
>>>>>
>>>>> The chunk is a partial maxilla, but from comparison with other
>>>>> carcharodontosaurs, the following is hypothesized [*ibid*]:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The 26-foot-long (8 meters) beast weighed 2,200 pounds (1,000 kilograms), making it longer than an African elephant and heavier than a bison. Researchers named it *Ulughbegsaurus* *uzbekistanensis*, after Ulugh Beg, a 15th-century astronomer, mathematician and sultan from what is now Uzbekistan.
>>>>>
>>>>> "What caught scientists by surprise was that the dinosaur was much larger — twice the length and more than five times heavier — than its ecosystem's previously known apex predator: a tyrannosaur, the researchers found."
>>>>>
>>>>> That should probably be "tyrannosauroid," but as you can see from the url,
>>>>> this article was chosen [from "Live Science"] with kids in mind as a hefty part
>>>>> of the audience; there is a suitable picture at the top of the article to go with that.
>>>>>
>>>>> The research paper on which it is based is free access:
>>>>> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.210923
>>>>>
>>>>> I relied on it for my opening paragraph, but this being late Friday here,
>>>>> I am quoting from the popularization from here on.
>>>>>
>>>>> "The two dinosaur groups were fairly similar, but carcharodontosaurs were generally more slender and lightly-built than the heavyset tyrannosaurs, said study co-researcher Darla Zelenitsky, an associate professor of paleobiology at the University of Calgary. Even so, carcharodontosaurs were usually larger than tyrannosaur dinosaurs, reaching weights greater than 13,200 pounds (6,000 kg)."
>>>>>
>>>>> Here too, "tyrannosauroid" is more precise, while "tyrannosaurid" is
>>>>> the most precise term in the next sentence:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Then, around 90 million to 80 million years ago, the carcharodontosaurs disappeared and the tyrannosaurs grew in size, taking over as apex predators in Asia and North America. "
>>>>>
>>>>> "The new finding is the first carcharodontosaur dinosaur discovered in Central Asia, the researchers noted. Paleontologists already knew that the tyrannosaur *Timurlengia* lived at the same time and place, but at 13 feet (4 m) in length and about 375 pounds (170 kg) in weight, *Timurlengia* was several times smaller than *U. uzbekistanensis*, suggesting that *U. uzbekistanensis* was the apex predator in that ecosystem, gobbling up horned dinosaurs, long-necked sauropods and ostrich-like dinosaurs in the neighborhood, the team said."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Methinks that the part from "gobbling up..." on was inspired by
>>>>> "The Land Before Time" cartoon series. My daughters each saw
>>>>> the first two at a tender age, and were very fond of them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> From the paper, "The contact surface for the premaxilla is not preserved due to damage at the anterior margin of the maxilla, where the first alveolus is broken and exposes an implanted tooth. "
>>>>
>>>> Implanted?
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure that the word the authors were looking for is "impacted."
>> I think they mean "implanted", likely a new tooth that was yet to emerge
>> from the jaw.
>
>>> That reminds me of a sore point between me and John Harshman.
>
>> Why do you feel it necessary to keep talking about your old grievances?
>
> Why do you use the word "old"? Don't you hang on Harshman's every word here in s.b.p.?
>
> And why do you feel it necessary to show that you are slavishly Harshman-serving
> and Harshman-aping?
>
>
>>> Mario and I had been discussing
>>> the issue of how reliable IQ tests are, and I had used the following analogy as an example
>>> of how a lot of IQ test questions measure vocabulary more [in the following case, at least ten times more]
>>> than they do intelligence.
>>>
>>> sea : littoral : : river : ___________
>>>
>>> Turns out Mario didn't even know what the colons were all about, and before I
>>> could tell him, Harshman explained that it was an analogy, and immediately spoiled
>>> the riddle for him by saying that he thought "The word Peter is looking for is ..."
>>>
>>> But I won't spoil the riddle for YOU just yet.
>>>
>>>
>>> Now Harshman has gone to the opposite extreme, refusing to talk to Mario
>>> about anything, using the half-truth that Mario is a "Nazi" as an excuse.
>
>> Half-truth? He's a virulent anti-semite who proposes that jews be
>> exterminated, not to mention various other so far unnamed groups.
>
> That's the truthful half of the half-truth. >
> Looks like you are revealing how clueless you are about what Nazism was, and is.

Okay, genius. Why don't you enlighten us for once instead of giving us
vague allusions and snide remarks as you usually do?

>
> Are you equally clueless about what Stalinism was? Did you know that there is a major
> resurgence of it in Russia? If so, do you give a hoot about it?

Whataboutism noted.

>
>
>> Sure, he is not literally a member of the NSDAP, but of course that
>> organization is defunct.
>
> More evidence of your cluelessness.

Bullshit.

>
> How old are you, anyway? How is it that you display so little awareness
> of what constitutes Nazism?

Are you gonna actually take the time to explain what you *think* Nazism
is or are you gonna continue to jerk off into the wind as usual?

>
>
>
>>>> Looks like a rock that someone took a dremel tool to. Allegedly in some basement in Russia
>>>
>>> Correction: Soviet Union
>>>
>>>> for 30+ years, without documentation of where found...
>>>
>>> I take it that you looked carefully in the research article for any hint of that.
>
> No interest in this on-topic issue, Thrinaxodon?

Hey, douchebag, I already responded to your OP. Furthermore why did you
even bring my name up? I had nothing to do with this subthread up until now.

>
>
> Peter Nyikos
>
>>>
>>> Peter Nyikos
>>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
>>> Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
>>> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>>>

Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan

<36cb2813-dd77-4ac7-987b-bcf2b3fba270n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3412&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3412

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7b4a:: with SMTP id m10mr822442qtu.121.1631556500751;
Mon, 13 Sep 2021 11:08:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:102f:: with SMTP id x15mr14745470ybt.130.1631556500442;
Mon, 13 Sep 2021 11:08:20 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 11:08:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <vqWdnbYnmN-0-aL8nZ2dnUU7-a_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.209.218.114; posting-account=LTsYjwkAAACi9EOosr8cUsLvEqpGlJoX
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.209.218.114
References: <b61ad741-c82a-4a7b-a276-59b71946f6dbn@googlegroups.com>
<2960ba6e-ec72-4279-9674-446d87887edfn@googlegroups.com> <93e86fc0-15ed-474e-8661-afc5c06a3520n@googlegroups.com>
<vqWdnbYnmN-0-aL8nZ2dnUU7-a_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <36cb2813-dd77-4ac7-987b-bcf2b3fba270n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan
From: GlennShe...@msn.com (Glenn)
Injection-Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 18:08:20 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 141
 by: Glenn - Mon, 13 Sep 2021 18:08 UTC

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 7:46:07 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/13/21 6:32 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 11:57:10 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> >> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 6:57:32 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> Carcharodontosauria (shark-toothed saurians) were the last of the
> >>> allosaurids, found in Laurasia up to the end of the Turonian
> >>> (early Late Cretaceous) but surviving in Gondwana to the end of the Cretaceous.
> >>> In a role reversal from what I've been accustomed to, the largest of these allosaurids
> >>> were considerably larger than the largest tyrannosauroids of the time..
> >>>
> >>> The "new" find is actually a rediscovery:
> >>>
> >>> "The chunk of jawbone was found in Uzbekistan's Kyzylkum Desert in the 1980s, and researchers rediscovered it in 2019 in an Uzbekistan museum collection."
> >>> https://www.microsoftnewskids.com/en-us/kids/animals/gigantic-shark-toothed-dinosaur-discovered-in-uzbekistan/ar-AAOhazl?ocid=entnewsntp
> >>>
> >>> The chunk is a partial maxilla, but from comparison with other
> >>> carcharodontosaurs, the following is hypothesized [*ibid*]:
> >>>
> >>> "The 26-foot-long (8 meters) beast weighed 2,200 pounds (1,000 kilograms), making it longer than an African elephant and heavier than a bison. Researchers named it *Ulughbegsaurus* *uzbekistanensis*, after Ulugh Beg, a 15th-century astronomer, mathematician and sultan from what is now Uzbekistan.
> >>>
> >>> "What caught scientists by surprise was that the dinosaur was much larger — twice the length and more than five times heavier — than its ecosystem's previously known apex predator: a tyrannosaur, the researchers found."
> >>>
> >>> That should probably be "tyrannosauroid," but as you can see from the url,
> >>> this article was chosen [from "Live Science"] with kids in mind as a hefty part
> >>> of the audience; there is a suitable picture at the top of the article to go with that.
> >>>
> >>> The research paper on which it is based is free access:
> >>> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.210923
> >>>
> >>> I relied on it for my opening paragraph, but this being late Friday here,
> >>> I am quoting from the popularization from here on.
> >>>
> >>> "The two dinosaur groups were fairly similar, but carcharodontosaurs were generally more slender and lightly-built than the heavyset tyrannosaurs, said study co-researcher Darla Zelenitsky, an associate professor of paleobiology at the University of Calgary. Even so, carcharodontosaurs were usually larger than tyrannosaur dinosaurs, reaching weights greater than 13,200 pounds (6,000 kg)."
> >>>
> >>> Here too, "tyrannosauroid" is more precise, while "tyrannosaurid" is
> >>> the most precise term in the next sentence:
> >>>
> >>> "Then, around 90 million to 80 million years ago, the carcharodontosaurs disappeared and the tyrannosaurs grew in size, taking over as apex predators in Asia and North America. "
> >>>
> >>> "The new finding is the first carcharodontosaur dinosaur discovered in Central Asia, the researchers noted. Paleontologists already knew that the tyrannosaur *Timurlengia* lived at the same time and place, but at 13 feet (4 m) in length and about 375 pounds (170 kg) in weight, *Timurlengia* was several times smaller than *U. uzbekistanensis*, suggesting that *U. uzbekistanensis* was the apex predator in that ecosystem, gobbling up horned dinosaurs, long-necked sauropods and ostrich-like dinosaurs in the neighborhood, the team said."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Methinks that the part from "gobbling up..." on was inspired by
> >>> "The Land Before Time" cartoon series. My daughters each saw
> >>> the first two at a tender age, and were very fond of them.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> From the paper, "The contact surface for the premaxilla is not preserved due to damage at the anterior margin of the maxilla, where the first alveolus is broken and exposes an implanted tooth. "
> >>
> >> Implanted?
> >
> > I'm pretty sure that the word the authors were looking for is "impacted.."

> I think they mean "implanted", likely a new tooth that was yet to emerge
> from the jaw.

Elsewhere in the paper they use "unerupted". That is closer to "impacted'. Implanted implies fraud. Fraudian, perhaps?

> > That reminds me of a sore point between me and John Harshman.
> Why do you feel it necessary to keep talking about your old grievances?
> > Mario and I had been discussing
> > the issue of how reliable IQ tests are, and I had used the following analogy as an example
> > of how a lot of IQ test questions measure vocabulary more [in the following case, at least ten times more]
> > than they do intelligence.
> >
> > sea : littoral : : river : ___________
> >
> > Turns out Mario didn't even know what the colons were all about, and before I
> > could tell him, Harshman explained that it was an analogy, and immediately spoiled
> > the riddle for him by saying that he thought "The word Peter is looking for is ..."
> >
> > But I won't spoil the riddle for YOU just yet.
> >
> >
> > Now Harshman has gone to the opposite extreme, refusing to talk to Mario
> > about anything, using the half-truth that Mario is a "Nazi" as an excuse.
> Half-truth? He's a virulent anti-semite who proposes that jews be
> exterminated, not to mention various other so far unnamed groups. Sure,
> he is not literally a member of the NSDAP, but of course that
> organization is defunct.
> >> Looks like a rock that someone took a dremel tool to. Allegedly in some basement in Russia
> >
> > Correction: Soviet Union
> >
> >> for 30+ years, without documentation of where found...
> >
> > I take it that you looked carefully in the research article for any hint of that.
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
> > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
> > http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> >

Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan

<15ad4d40-06ef-4536-beec-c866798e42a5n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3414&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3414

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:706:: with SMTP id b6mr966470qvz.29.1631558398529;
Mon, 13 Sep 2021 11:39:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:d054:: with SMTP id h81mr16558272ybg.411.1631558398345;
Mon, 13 Sep 2021 11:39:58 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 11:39:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <vqWdnbYnmN-0-aL8nZ2dnUU7-a_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=129.252.33.36; posting-account=MmaSmwoAAABAWoWNw3B4MhJqLSp3_9Ze
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.252.33.36
References: <b61ad741-c82a-4a7b-a276-59b71946f6dbn@googlegroups.com>
<2960ba6e-ec72-4279-9674-446d87887edfn@googlegroups.com> <93e86fc0-15ed-474e-8661-afc5c06a3520n@googlegroups.com>
<vqWdnbYnmN-0-aL8nZ2dnUU7-a_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <15ad4d40-06ef-4536-beec-c866798e42a5n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan
From: peter2ny...@gmail.com (Peter Nyikos)
Injection-Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 18:39:58 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 185
 by: Peter Nyikos - Mon, 13 Sep 2021 18:39 UTC

My bad. For some reason I thought both posts that appeared below my last one
were by Oxyaena. Now I see that one was by you, John, and from Oxyaena's
reply to my first reply, it seems she is at least as clueless about Nazism as you are.

Rather than dwell on this theme with you, I take this opportunity to switch to some on-topic discussion,
and to make it more attractive to you, I will focus on systematics.

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:46:07 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/13/21 6:32 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 11:57:10 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> >> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 6:57:32 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> Carcharodontosauria (shark-toothed saurians) were the last of the
> >>> allosaurids, found in Laurasia up to the end of the Turonian
> >>> (early Late Cretaceous) but surviving in Gondwana to the end of the Cretaceous.
> >>> In a role reversal from what I've been accustomed to, the largest of these allosaurids
> >>> were considerably larger than the largest tyrannosauroids of the time..
> >>>
> >>> The "new" find is actually a rediscovery:
> >>>
> >>> "The chunk of jawbone was found in Uzbekistan's Kyzylkum Desert in the 1980s, and researchers rediscovered it in 2019 in an Uzbekistan museum collection."
> >>> https://www.microsoftnewskids.com/en-us/kids/animals/gigantic-shark-toothed-dinosaur-discovered-in-uzbekistan/ar-AAOhazl?ocid=entnewsntp
> >>>
> >>> The chunk is a partial maxilla, but from comparison with other
> >>> carcharodontosaurs, the following is hypothesized [*ibid*]:
> >>>
> >>> "The 26-foot-long (8 meters) beast weighed 2,200 pounds (1,000 kilograms), making it longer than an African elephant and heavier than a bison. Researchers named it *Ulughbegsaurus* *uzbekistanensis*, after Ulugh Beg, a 15th-century astronomer, mathematician and sultan from what is now Uzbekistan.
> >>>
> >>> "What caught scientists by surprise was that the dinosaur was much larger — twice the length and more than five times heavier — than its ecosystem's previously known apex predator: a tyrannosaur, the researchers found."

If you look at the illustrations, you can see that it is a relatively small fragment of the upper jaw,
making me wonder how they got it so neatly into the phylogeny and thus were able
to extrapolate from known specimens.

And I wonder how well they took into account the principle that as an organism evolves
to a much greater size, some parts of the anatomy increase more than others..
There were some pretty careless estimates made just from the sizes of various
teeth in homininae, and it might have actually come as a surprise to some paleontologists
to learn that *Gigantopithecus* really was the size one would expect from its huge molars.


> > I'm pretty sure that the word the authors were looking for is "impacted.."
> I think they mean "implanted", likely a new tooth that was yet to emerge
> from the jaw.

Did you study the illustrations to see whether this is what they meant?

By the way, do you have some grounds for thinking "implanted" is a synonym for "unerupted"?

Back to the specimen. On a thread about a Cambrian invertebrate [IIRC a stem arthropod]
you were disappointed by the lack of a phylogenetic analysis. The following should put you
in hog heaven where this "shark-tooth" is concerned:

"Two phylogenetic analyses, each including the new taxon Ulughbegsaurus, were conducted with the
software TNT v. 1.5 [41] (electronic supplementary material, text S1: figures S3 and S4). Our first
analysis was performed using the data matrix proposed by Carrano et al. [42] then modified by
Hendrickx & Mateus [10] where Eoraptor represents the outgroup; the characters are treated as
unordered. Our second analysis was conducted using the matrix originally proposed by Porfiri et al.
[43] then modified by Chokchaloemwong et al. [40] where Ceratosaurus represents the outgroup;
characters 2, 4, 6, 13, 15, 17, 27, 69, 106, 148, 155, 158, 160, 167, 169, 171, 179, 181, 194, 195, 205, 208,
217, 233, 241, 259, 267, 271 were treated as ordered. A traditional heuristic search was done with 1000
replicates of Wagner trees using random addition sequences, followed by the tree bisection and
reconnection branch swapping that holds 10 trees per replicate. Consistency index and retention index
were calculated with PAUP 4.0a [44]."
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.210923 [Section 4, paragraph 1]

What does "were treated as ordered" mean? The section continued with:

"The first phylogenetic analysis produced 6320 most parsimonious treeswith a strict consensus tree placing
Ulughbegsaurus within a poorly resolved Neovenatoridae (Aerosteon, Australovenator, Chilantaisaurus,
Fukuiraptor, Megaraptor and Neovenator), a clade within Carcharodontosauria (figure 3a).

How can there be so many "most parsimonous trees"? Is there a quantitative measure of parsimony,
or is it just an order ranking, with 6320 maximal trees, none of which is comparable to any of the others?

"Neovenatoridae
was supported by 12 synapomorphies in this analysis, which includes two characters of the maxilla (i.e.
small foramen of promaxillary fenestra and sculptured external surface of maxilla and nasal). The second
phylogenetic analysis produced 284 most parsimonious trees with a strict consensus tree recovering
Ulughbegsaurus within Carcharodontosauria where Ulughbegsaurus, Siamraptor, Eocarcharia, Neovenator,
Concavenator and the clade of Acrocanthosaurus, Shaochilong and Carcharodontosaurinae all form a
polytomy (figure 3b).

Wow, big time disagreement with other "consensus" tree. Are such things taken
in their stride by your favorite systematists?

"Carcharodontosauria is supported by 18 synapomorphies, including two characters
of the maxilla (i.e. fused posterior paradental plates and approximately 20° ventral orientation at the jugal
contact). A major difference in the results of these two phylogenetic analyses is that Megaraptora is placed
within Carcharodontosauria and Tyrannosauroidea in the first and second analyses, respectively.

Our results are consistent with the results of the original analyses where Megaraptora is placed in
Allosauroidea by Carrano et al. [42] but in Tyrannosauroidea by Porfiri et al. [43].

Good grief! IIRC allosaurs are in Carnosauria and tyrannosaurs in Coelurosauria, two giant separate
clades.

If this is the unsatisfactory status of Megaraptora, can we be sure Maniraptora is safely ensconced
in Coelurosauria?

If not, Feduccia will probably gain some new disciples to replace any that drop
away due to death, or whatever.

The following sentence concludes Section 4, which I have thus quoted in its
entirety, putting comments exactly where they are most effective.

"Based on both of our
phylogenetic analyses, however, it is evident that Ulughbegsaurus is assignable to the Carcharodontosauria."

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

PS The aforementioned insertion feature, far more easily done on Usenet
than in most other forums, is a boon to people who are trying to get at
the truth of things, and a bane to everyone whose primary objective is to make
it look like they have the upper hand in a debate, by hook or crook.

Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan

<jcqdnXCj8e-UAaL8nZ2dnUU7-bfNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3415&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3415

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed7.news.xs4all.nl!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 13:44:25 -0500
Subject: Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
References: <b61ad741-c82a-4a7b-a276-59b71946f6dbn@googlegroups.com> <2960ba6e-ec72-4279-9674-446d87887edfn@googlegroups.com> <93e86fc0-15ed-474e-8661-afc5c06a3520n@googlegroups.com> <vqWdnbYnmN-0-aL8nZ2dnUU7-a_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <40b6869b-0d3b-4089-a9a1-e98dc00f1003n@googlegroups.com>
From: jharsh...@pacbell.net (John Harshman)
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 11:44:25 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <40b6869b-0d3b-4089-a9a1-e98dc00f1003n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <jcqdnXCj8e-UAaL8nZ2dnUU7-bfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 129
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Wobw4BlJ6QbXrvlwGhzzeHwkrgYWeLWqsNEF1FgwM8B7t7DazVNMZjduSaaCEVdVo2koBtFljWQlyPL!2t2y/FtNdyRsDpgTzxPrVuVIXzm/rHfV0NedOvM3hoL6mUpCUbTkgmRibk/sUW9b6VahSjCNXek=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 8339
 by: John Harshman - Mon, 13 Sep 2021 18:44 UTC

On 9/13/21 8:15 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:46:07 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/13/21 6:32 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 11:57:10 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
>>>> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 6:57:32 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> Carcharodontosauria (shark-toothed saurians) were the last of the
>>>>> allosaurids, found in Laurasia up to the end of the Turonian
>>>>> (early Late Cretaceous) but surviving in Gondwana to the end of the Cretaceous.
>>>>> In a role reversal from what I've been accustomed to, the largest of these allosaurids
>>>>> were considerably larger than the largest tyrannosauroids of the time.
>>>>>
>>>>> The "new" find is actually a rediscovery:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The chunk of jawbone was found in Uzbekistan's Kyzylkum Desert in the 1980s, and researchers rediscovered it in 2019 in an Uzbekistan museum collection."
>>>>> https://www.microsoftnewskids.com/en-us/kids/animals/gigantic-shark-toothed-dinosaur-discovered-in-uzbekistan/ar-AAOhazl?ocid=entnewsntp
>>>>>
>>>>> The chunk is a partial maxilla, but from comparison with other
>>>>> carcharodontosaurs, the following is hypothesized [*ibid*]:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The 26-foot-long (8 meters) beast weighed 2,200 pounds (1,000 kilograms), making it longer than an African elephant and heavier than a bison. Researchers named it *Ulughbegsaurus* *uzbekistanensis*, after Ulugh Beg, a 15th-century astronomer, mathematician and sultan from what is now Uzbekistan.
>>>>>
>>>>> "What caught scientists by surprise was that the dinosaur was much larger — twice the length and more than five times heavier — than its ecosystem's previously known apex predator: a tyrannosaur, the researchers found."
>>>>>
>>>>> That should probably be "tyrannosauroid," but as you can see from the url,
>>>>> this article was chosen [from "Live Science"] with kids in mind as a hefty part
>>>>> of the audience; there is a suitable picture at the top of the article to go with that.
>>>>>
>>>>> The research paper on which it is based is free access:
>>>>> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.210923
>>>>>
>>>>> I relied on it for my opening paragraph, but this being late Friday here,
>>>>> I am quoting from the popularization from here on.
>>>>>
>>>>> "The two dinosaur groups were fairly similar, but carcharodontosaurs were generally more slender and lightly-built than the heavyset tyrannosaurs, said study co-researcher Darla Zelenitsky, an associate professor of paleobiology at the University of Calgary. Even so, carcharodontosaurs were usually larger than tyrannosaur dinosaurs, reaching weights greater than 13,200 pounds (6,000 kg)."
>>>>>
>>>>> Here too, "tyrannosauroid" is more precise, while "tyrannosaurid" is
>>>>> the most precise term in the next sentence:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Then, around 90 million to 80 million years ago, the carcharodontosaurs disappeared and the tyrannosaurs grew in size, taking over as apex predators in Asia and North America. "
>>>>>
>>>>> "The new finding is the first carcharodontosaur dinosaur discovered in Central Asia, the researchers noted. Paleontologists already knew that the tyrannosaur *Timurlengia* lived at the same time and place, but at 13 feet (4 m) in length and about 375 pounds (170 kg) in weight, *Timurlengia* was several times smaller than *U. uzbekistanensis*, suggesting that *U. uzbekistanensis* was the apex predator in that ecosystem, gobbling up horned dinosaurs, long-necked sauropods and ostrich-like dinosaurs in the neighborhood, the team said."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Methinks that the part from "gobbling up..." on was inspired by
>>>>> "The Land Before Time" cartoon series. My daughters each saw
>>>>> the first two at a tender age, and were very fond of them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> From the paper, "The contact surface for the premaxilla is not preserved due to damage at the anterior margin of the maxilla, where the first alveolus is broken and exposes an implanted tooth. "
>>>>
>>>> Implanted?
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure that the word the authors were looking for is "impacted."
>> I think they mean "implanted", likely a new tooth that was yet to emerge
>> from the jaw.
>
>>> That reminds me of a sore point between me and John Harshman.
>
>> Why do you feel it necessary to keep talking about your old grievances?
>
> Why do you use the word "old"? Don't you hang on Harshman's every word here in s.b.p.?
>
> And why do you feel it necessary to show that you are slavishly Harshman-serving
> and Harshman-aping?

Uh, I am Harshman?

>>> Mario and I had been discussing
>>> the issue of how reliable IQ tests are, and I had used the following analogy as an example
>>> of how a lot of IQ test questions measure vocabulary more [in the following case, at least ten times more]
>>> than they do intelligence.
>>>
>>> sea : littoral : : river : ___________
>>>
>>> Turns out Mario didn't even know what the colons were all about, and before I
>>> could tell him, Harshman explained that it was an analogy, and immediately spoiled
>>> the riddle for him by saying that he thought "The word Peter is looking for is ..."
>>>
>>> But I won't spoil the riddle for YOU just yet.
>>>
>>>
>>> Now Harshman has gone to the opposite extreme, refusing to talk to Mario
>>> about anything, using the half-truth that Mario is a "Nazi" as an excuse.
>
>> Half-truth? He's a virulent anti-semite who proposes that jews be
>> exterminated, not to mention various other so far unnamed groups.
>
> That's the truthful half of the half-truth.
>
> Looks like you are revealing how clueless you are about what Nazism was, and is.

No.

> Are you equally clueless about what Stalinism was? Did you know that there is a major
> resurgence of it in Russia? If so, do you give a hoot about it?

No (though I also reject the prmise), yes, and yes. Why do you ask?

>> Sure, he is not literally a member of the NSDAP, but of course that
>> organization is defunct.
>
> More evidence of your cluelessness.
>
> How old are you, anyway? How is it that you display so little awareness
> of what constitutes Nazism?

I will admit that the NSDAP was defunct nearly a decade before my birth.
How old are you?

>>>> Looks like a rock that someone took a dremel tool to. Allegedly in some basement in Russia
>>>
>>> Correction: Soviet Union
>>>
>>>> for 30+ years, without documentation of where found...
>>>
>>> I take it that you looked carefully in the research article for any hint of that.
>
> No interest in this on-topic issue, Thrinaxodon?
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
>
>>>
>>> Peter Nyikos
>>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
>>> Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
>>> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>>>

Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan

<EqidneU2tr8BPaL8nZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3416&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3416

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 14:03:56 -0500
Subject: Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
References: <b61ad741-c82a-4a7b-a276-59b71946f6dbn@googlegroups.com>
<2960ba6e-ec72-4279-9674-446d87887edfn@googlegroups.com>
<93e86fc0-15ed-474e-8661-afc5c06a3520n@googlegroups.com>
<vqWdnbYnmN-0-aL8nZ2dnUU7-a_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<15ad4d40-06ef-4536-beec-c866798e42a5n@googlegroups.com>
From: jharsh...@pacbell.net (John Harshman)
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 12:03:55 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <15ad4d40-06ef-4536-beec-c866798e42a5n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <EqidneU2tr8BPaL8nZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 156
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-02bQhx/pDMi2aAdfdEgcKF1i37G6M5Nv9YxlDN9LsLX4RKXvaRMSgh6TOsdbpG7YC62PKPGhyneyUS7!v148JCi9Z3wFHl0MK3cM/WxwfVN/3PcH+P4ENaOI1/muhG7St+S9C5RXTURjnTimXkF4cDID57o=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 10751
 by: John Harshman - Mon, 13 Sep 2021 19:03 UTC

On 9/13/21 11:39 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> My bad. For some reason I thought both posts that appeared below my last one
> were by Oxyaena. Now I see that one was by you, John, and from Oxyaena's
> reply to my first reply, it seems she is at least as clueless about Nazism as you are.
>
> Rather than dwell on this theme with you, I take this opportunity to switch to some on-topic discussion,
> and to make it more attractive to you, I will focus on systematics.
>
> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:46:07 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/13/21 6:32 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 11:57:10 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
>>>> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 6:57:32 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> Carcharodontosauria (shark-toothed saurians) were the last of the
>>>>> allosaurids, found in Laurasia up to the end of the Turonian
>>>>> (early Late Cretaceous) but surviving in Gondwana to the end of the Cretaceous.
>>>>> In a role reversal from what I've been accustomed to, the largest of these allosaurids
>>>>> were considerably larger than the largest tyrannosauroids of the time.
>>>>>
>>>>> The "new" find is actually a rediscovery:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The chunk of jawbone was found in Uzbekistan's Kyzylkum Desert in the 1980s, and researchers rediscovered it in 2019 in an Uzbekistan museum collection."
>>>>> https://www.microsoftnewskids.com/en-us/kids/animals/gigantic-shark-toothed-dinosaur-discovered-in-uzbekistan/ar-AAOhazl?ocid=entnewsntp
>>>>>
>>>>> The chunk is a partial maxilla, but from comparison with other
>>>>> carcharodontosaurs, the following is hypothesized [*ibid*]:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The 26-foot-long (8 meters) beast weighed 2,200 pounds (1,000 kilograms), making it longer than an African elephant and heavier than a bison. Researchers named it *Ulughbegsaurus* *uzbekistanensis*, after Ulugh Beg, a 15th-century astronomer, mathematician and sultan from what is now Uzbekistan.
>>>>>
>>>>> "What caught scientists by surprise was that the dinosaur was much larger — twice the length and more than five times heavier — than its ecosystem's previously known apex predator: a tyrannosaur, the researchers found."
>
> If you look at the illustrations, you can see that it is a relatively small fragment of the upper jaw,
> making me wonder how they got it so neatly into the phylogeny and thus were able
> to extrapolate from known specimens.
>
> And I wonder how well they took into account the principle that as an organism evolves
> to a much greater size, some parts of the anatomy increase more than others.
> There were some pretty careless estimates made just from the sizes of various
> teeth in homininae, and it might have actually come as a surprise to some paleontologists
> to learn that *Gigantopithecus* really was the size one would expect from its huge molars.
>
>
>
>>> I'm pretty sure that the word the authors were looking for is "impacted."
>> I think they mean "implanted", likely a new tooth that was yet to emerge
>> from the jaw.
>
> Did you study the illustrations to see whether this is what they meant?
>
> By the way, do you have some grounds for thinking "implanted" is a synonym for "unerupted"?

It seems clear that's what they meant, as it was exposed only because of
a break in the maxilla.

I see you have located the actual paper,
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.210923#d1e809

> Back to the specimen. On a thread about a Cambrian invertebrate [IIRC a stem arthropod]
> you were disappointed by the lack of a phylogenetic analysis. The following should put you
> in hog heaven where this "shark-tooth" is concerned:
>
> "Two phylogenetic analyses, each including the new taxon Ulughbegsaurus, were conducted with the
> software TNT v. 1.5 [41] (electronic supplementary material, text S1: figures S3 and S4). Our first
> analysis was performed using the data matrix proposed by Carrano et al. [42] then modified by
> Hendrickx & Mateus [10] where Eoraptor represents the outgroup; the characters are treated as
> unordered. Our second analysis was conducted using the matrix originally proposed by Porfiri et al.
> [43] then modified by Chokchaloemwong et al. [40] where Ceratosaurus represents the outgroup;
> characters 2, 4, 6, 13, 15, 17, 27, 69, 106, 148, 155, 158, 160, 167, 169, 171, 179, 181, 194, 195, 205, 208,
> 217, 233, 241, 259, 267, 271 were treated as ordered. A traditional heuristic search was done with 1000
> replicates of Wagner trees using random addition sequences, followed by the tree bisection and
> reconnection branch swapping that holds 10 trees per replicate. Consistency index and retention index
> were calculated with PAUP 4.0a [44]."
> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.210923 [Section 4, paragraph 1]
>
> What does "were treated as ordered" mean?

A multistate character can be either ordered or unordered. If unordered,
going from one state to any other takes one step. If ordered, going from
state 1 to state 3 requires two steps, etc.

> The section continued with:
>
> "The first phylogenetic analysis produced 6320 most parsimonious treeswith a strict consensus tree placing
> Ulughbegsaurus within a poorly resolved Neovenatoridae (Aerosteon, Australovenator, Chilantaisaurus,
> Fukuiraptor, Megaraptor and Neovenator), a clade within Carcharodontosauria (figure 3a).
>
> How can there be so many "most parsimonous trees"? Is there a quantitative measure of parsimony,
> or is it just an order ranking, with 6320 maximal trees, none of which is comparable to any of the others?

The quantitative measure is the number of steps (changes) required to
fit the data to the tree. Not sure what you mean by "maximal" here;
these are the trees that require the least number of steps. The trees
are not identical, but only a few polytomies can produce a lot of trees.
It seems that figure 3 shows strict consensus trees, i.e. the nodes that
all the trees agree on. As you can see, there's plenty of agreement.

> "Neovenatoridae
> was supported by 12 synapomorphies in this analysis, which includes two characters of the maxilla (i.e.
> small foramen of promaxillary fenestra and sculptured external surface of maxilla and nasal). The second
> phylogenetic analysis produced 284 most parsimonious trees with a strict consensus tree recovering
> Ulughbegsaurus within Carcharodontosauria where Ulughbegsaurus, Siamraptor, Eocarcharia, Neovenator,
> Concavenator and the clade of Acrocanthosaurus, Shaochilong and Carcharodontosaurinae all form a
> polytomy (figure 3b).
>
> Wow, big time disagreement with other "consensus" tree. Are such things taken
> in their stride by your favorite systematists?

Usually one attempts to determine the causes of conflict and resolve
them. In this case the analyses use different characters, and somebody
ought to look at that. Of course only the maxillary characters are known
for the focal taxon, so maybe they didn't feel like going to the trouble.

> "Carcharodontosauria is supported by 18 synapomorphies, including two characters
> of the maxilla (i.e. fused posterior paradental plates and approximately 20° ventral orientation at the jugal
> contact). A major difference in the results of these two phylogenetic analyses is that Megaraptora is placed
> within Carcharodontosauria and Tyrannosauroidea in the first and second analyses, respectively.
>
>
> Our results are consistent with the results of the original analyses where Megaraptora is placed in
> Allosauroidea by Carrano et al. [42] but in Tyrannosauroidea by Porfiri et al. [43].
>
> Good grief! IIRC allosaurs are in Carnosauria and tyrannosaurs in Coelurosauria, two giant separate
> clades.
>
> If this is the unsatisfactory status of Megaraptora, can we be sure Maniraptora is safely ensconced
> in Coelurosauria?

You would have to consult the original analyses, the ones cited in this
paper. And you would need to argue about the homology assignments of the
various characters. But I think we can be sure.

> If not, Feduccia will probably gain some new disciples to replace any that drop
> away due to death, or whatever.
>
>
> The following sentence concludes Section 4, which I have thus quoted in its
> entirety, putting comments exactly where they are most effective.
>
> "Based on both of our
> phylogenetic analyses, however, it is evident that Ulughbegsaurus is assignable to the Carcharodontosauria."

And that's really all they were trying to do. They were unconcerned with
where carcharodonts actually go.

> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>
> PS The aforementioned insertion feature, far more easily done on Usenet
> than in most other forums, is a boon to people who are trying to get at
> the truth of things, and a bane to everyone whose primary objective is to make
> it look like they have the upper hand in a debate, by hook or crook.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan

<f494ca1a-755b-4d24-a353-4931a28bde42n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3417&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3417

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:45e7:: with SMTP id q7mr1294582qvu.23.1631588975702;
Mon, 13 Sep 2021 20:09:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a5b:612:: with SMTP id d18mr21178585ybq.113.1631588975464;
Mon, 13 Sep 2021 20:09:35 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 20:09:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <EqidneU2tr8BPaL8nZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:1700:48c9:290:c9be:95aa:cb4b:9be8;
posting-account=MmaSmwoAAABAWoWNw3B4MhJqLSp3_9Ze
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:1700:48c9:290:c9be:95aa:cb4b:9be8
References: <b61ad741-c82a-4a7b-a276-59b71946f6dbn@googlegroups.com>
<2960ba6e-ec72-4279-9674-446d87887edfn@googlegroups.com> <93e86fc0-15ed-474e-8661-afc5c06a3520n@googlegroups.com>
<vqWdnbYnmN-0-aL8nZ2dnUU7-a_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <15ad4d40-06ef-4536-beec-c866798e42a5n@googlegroups.com>
<EqidneU2tr8BPaL8nZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <f494ca1a-755b-4d24-a353-4931a28bde42n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan
From: peter2ny...@gmail.com (Peter Nyikos)
Injection-Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 03:09:35 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 313
 by: Peter Nyikos - Tue, 14 Sep 2021 03:09 UTC

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 3:04:02 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/13/21 11:39 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > My bad. For some reason I thought both posts that appeared below my last one
> > were by Oxyaena. Now I see that one was by you, John, and from Oxyaena's
> > reply to my first reply, it seems she is at least as clueless about Nazism as you are.
> >
> > Rather than dwell on this theme with you, I take this opportunity to switch to some on-topic discussion,
> > and to make it more attractive to you, I will focus on systematics.
> >
> > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:46:07 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 9/13/21 6:32 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 11:57:10 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 6:57:32 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> Carcharodontosauria (shark-toothed saurians) were the last of the
> >>>>> allosaurids, found in Laurasia up to the end of the Turonian
> >>>>> (early Late Cretaceous) but surviving in Gondwana to the end of the Cretaceous.
> >>>>> In a role reversal from what I've been accustomed to, the largest of these allosaurids
> >>>>> were considerably larger than the largest tyrannosauroids of the time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The "new" find is actually a rediscovery:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "The chunk of jawbone was found in Uzbekistan's Kyzylkum Desert in the 1980s, and researchers rediscovered it in 2019 in an Uzbekistan museum collection."
> >>>>> https://www.microsoftnewskids.com/en-us/kids/animals/gigantic-shark-toothed-dinosaur-discovered-in-uzbekistan/ar-AAOhazl?ocid=entnewsntp
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The chunk is a partial maxilla, but from comparison with other
> >>>>> carcharodontosaurs, the following is hypothesized [*ibid*]:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "The 26-foot-long (8 meters) beast weighed 2,200 pounds (1,000 kilograms), making it longer than an African elephant and heavier than a bison. Researchers named it *Ulughbegsaurus* *uzbekistanensis*, after Ulugh Beg, a 15th-century astronomer, mathematician and sultan from what is now Uzbekistan.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "What caught scientists by surprise was that the dinosaur was much larger — twice the length and more than five times heavier — than its ecosystem's previously known apex predator: a tyrannosaur, the researchers found."
> >
> > If you look at the illustrations, you can see that it is a relatively small fragment of the upper jaw,
> > making me wonder how they got it so neatly into the phylogeny and thus were able
> > to extrapolate from known specimens.
> >
> > And I wonder how well they took into account the principle that as an organism evolves
> > to a much greater size, some parts of the anatomy increase more than others.
> > There were some pretty careless estimates made just from the sizes of various
> > teeth in homininae, and it might have actually come as a surprise to some paleontologists
> > to learn that *Gigantopithecus* really was the size one would expect from its huge molars.
> >
> >
> >
> >>> I'm pretty sure that the word the authors were looking for is "impacted."
> >> I think they mean "implanted", likely a new tooth that was yet to emerge
> >> from the jaw.
> >
> > Did you study the illustrations to see whether this is what they meant?
> >
> > By the way, do you have some grounds for thinking "implanted" is a synonym for "unerupted"?

> It seems clear that's what they meant, as it was exposed only because of
> a break in the maxilla.

You are evading the question. Are you afraid to say that the authors may have been guilty
of a malapropism?

> I see you have located the actual paper,
> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.210923#d1e809

I see you didn't notice that I included it in the OP. Did I make it too boring for you to read
it without getting sleepy?

> > Back to the specimen. On a thread about a Cambrian invertebrate [IIRC a stem arthropod]
> > you were disappointed by the lack of a phylogenetic analysis. The following should put you
> > in hog heaven where this "shark-tooth" is concerned:
> >
> > "Two phylogenetic analyses, each including the new taxon Ulughbegsaurus, were conducted with the
> > software TNT v. 1.5 [41] (electronic supplementary material, text S1: figures S3 and S4). Our first
> > analysis was performed using the data matrix proposed by Carrano et al. [42] then modified by
> > Hendrickx & Mateus [10] where Eoraptor represents the outgroup; the characters are treated as
> > unordered. Our second analysis was conducted using the matrix originally proposed by Porfiri et al.
> > [43] then modified by Chokchaloemwong et al. [40] where Ceratosaurus represents the outgroup;
> > characters 2, 4, 6, 13, 15, 17, 27, 69, 106, 148, 155, 158, 160, 167, 169, 171, 179, 181, 194, 195, 205, 208,
> > 217, 233, 241, 259, 267, 271 were treated as ordered. A traditional heuristic search was done with 1000
> > replicates of Wagner trees using random addition sequences, followed by the tree bisection and
> > reconnection branch swapping that holds 10 trees per replicate. Consistency index and retention index
> > were calculated with PAUP 4.0a [44]."
> > https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.210923 [Section 4, paragraph 1]
> >
> > What does "were treated as ordered" mean?

> A multistate character can be either ordered or unordered. If unordered,
> going from one state to any other takes one step. If ordered, going from
> state 1 to state 3 requires two steps, etc.

Ah, like state 1 feathers (dinofuzz, optimistically called protofeathers), state 2 feathers,
state 3 feathers [barbs but no barbules, as in kiwis], state 4 feathers, and state 5 asymmetric flight remiges?

But you don't include any of these in your phylogenetic analyses, despite a "consensus" that the majority of
coelurosaurs had at least state 1, eh?

> > The section continued with:
> >
> > "The first phylogenetic analysis produced 6320 most parsimonious treeswith a strict consensus tree placing
> > Ulughbegsaurus within a poorly resolved Neovenatoridae (Aerosteon, Australovenator, Chilantaisaurus,
> > Fukuiraptor, Megaraptor and Neovenator), a clade within Carcharodontosauria (figure 3a).
> >
> > How can there be so many "most parsimonous trees"? Is there a quantitative measure of parsimony,
> > or is it just an order ranking, with 6320 maximal trees, none of which is comparable to any of the others?

> The quantitative measure is the number of steps (changes) required to
> fit the data to the tree. Not sure what you mean by "maximal" here;

Not all orderings are linear. Take the proper subsets of the set {1, 2, 3} with the order "is a subset of";
by proper subset I mean a subset missing at least one element. The maximal proper subsets
are {1,2}, {2,3} and {1,3}. They are maximal, because there is no proper subset that contains any
of them without being that subset itself.

> these are the trees that require the least number of steps. The trees
> are not identical, but only a few polytomies can produce a lot of trees.
> It seems that figure 3 shows strict consensus trees, i.e. the nodes that
> all the trees agree on. As you can see, there's plenty of agreement.

> > "Neovenatoridae
> > was supported by 12 synapomorphies in this analysis, which includes two characters of the maxilla (i.e.
> > small foramen of promaxillary fenestra and sculptured external surface of maxilla and nasal). The second
> > phylogenetic analysis produced 284 most parsimonious trees with a strict consensus tree recovering
> > Ulughbegsaurus within Carcharodontosauria where Ulughbegsaurus, Siamraptor, Eocarcharia, Neovenator,
> > Concavenator and the clade of Acrocanthosaurus, Shaochilong and Carcharodontosaurinae all form a
> > polytomy (figure 3b).
> >
> > Wow, big time disagreement with other "consensus" tree. Are such things taken
> > in their stride by your favorite systematists?

> Usually one attempts to determine the causes of conflict and resolve
> them. In this case the analyses use different characters, and somebody
> ought to look at that. Of course only the maxillary characters are known
> for the focal taxon, so maybe they didn't feel like going to the trouble.

> > "Carcharodontosauria is supported by 18 synapomorphies, including two characters
> > of the maxilla (i.e. fused posterior paradental plates and approximately 20° ventral orientation at the jugal
> > contact). A major difference in the results of these two phylogenetic analyses is that Megaraptora is placed
> > within Carcharodontosauria and Tyrannosauroidea in the first and second analyses, respectively.
> > Our results are consistent with the results of the original analyses where Megaraptora is placed in
> > Allosauroidea by Carrano et al. [42] but in Tyrannosauroidea by Porfiri et al. [43].
> >
> > Good grief! IIRC allosaurs are in Carnosauria and tyrannosaurs in Coelurosauria, two giant separate
> > clades.
> >
> > If this is the unsatisfactory status of Megaraptora, can we be sure Maniraptora is safely ensconced
> > in Coelurosauria?


Click here to read the complete article
Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan

<xa6dne6hrt9sut38nZ2dnUU7-e_NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3418&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3418

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 23:41:21 -0500
Subject: Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
References: <b61ad741-c82a-4a7b-a276-59b71946f6dbn@googlegroups.com>
<2960ba6e-ec72-4279-9674-446d87887edfn@googlegroups.com>
<93e86fc0-15ed-474e-8661-afc5c06a3520n@googlegroups.com>
<vqWdnbYnmN-0-aL8nZ2dnUU7-a_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<15ad4d40-06ef-4536-beec-c866798e42a5n@googlegroups.com>
<EqidneU2tr8BPaL8nZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f494ca1a-755b-4d24-a353-4931a28bde42n@googlegroups.com>
From: jharsh...@pacbell.net (John Harshman)
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 21:41:21 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f494ca1a-755b-4d24-a353-4931a28bde42n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <xa6dne6hrt9sut38nZ2dnUU7-e_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 236
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-bMLX4XB7O07jJeo7uhI84hla87wzrw9e+OCkLhAT3KhDAk3sij+VmZ/m/OS9unQHRKJUcRUWsG6hNse!TVLk8OcO7Nu5J6VLckKC2R8sB/GK1pwX+7ZJk2bEhDNPG5vbO6ZFvMU4bCqnNFRrW6XIg57AK3w=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 14668
 by: John Harshman - Tue, 14 Sep 2021 04:41 UTC

On 9/13/21 8:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 3:04:02 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/13/21 11:39 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> My bad. For some reason I thought both posts that appeared below my last one
>>> were by Oxyaena. Now I see that one was by you, John, and from Oxyaena's
>>> reply to my first reply, it seems she is at least as clueless about Nazism as you are.
>>>
>>> Rather than dwell on this theme with you, I take this opportunity to switch to some on-topic discussion,
>>> and to make it more attractive to you, I will focus on systematics.
>>>
>>> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:46:07 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 9/13/21 6:32 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 11:57:10 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 6:57:32 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>> Carcharodontosauria (shark-toothed saurians) were the last of the
>>>>>>> allosaurids, found in Laurasia up to the end of the Turonian
>>>>>>> (early Late Cretaceous) but surviving in Gondwana to the end of the Cretaceous.
>>>>>>> In a role reversal from what I've been accustomed to, the largest of these allosaurids
>>>>>>> were considerably larger than the largest tyrannosauroids of the time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The "new" find is actually a rediscovery:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The chunk of jawbone was found in Uzbekistan's Kyzylkum Desert in the 1980s, and researchers rediscovered it in 2019 in an Uzbekistan museum collection."
>>>>>>> https://www.microsoftnewskids.com/en-us/kids/animals/gigantic-shark-toothed-dinosaur-discovered-in-uzbekistan/ar-AAOhazl?ocid=entnewsntp
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The chunk is a partial maxilla, but from comparison with other
>>>>>>> carcharodontosaurs, the following is hypothesized [*ibid*]:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The 26-foot-long (8 meters) beast weighed 2,200 pounds (1,000 kilograms), making it longer than an African elephant and heavier than a bison. Researchers named it *Ulughbegsaurus* *uzbekistanensis*, after Ulugh Beg, a 15th-century astronomer, mathematician and sultan from what is now Uzbekistan.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "What caught scientists by surprise was that the dinosaur was much larger — twice the length and more than five times heavier — than its ecosystem's previously known apex predator: a tyrannosaur, the researchers found."
>>>
>>> If you look at the illustrations, you can see that it is a relatively small fragment of the upper jaw,
>>> making me wonder how they got it so neatly into the phylogeny and thus were able
>>> to extrapolate from known specimens.
>>>
>>> And I wonder how well they took into account the principle that as an organism evolves
>>> to a much greater size, some parts of the anatomy increase more than others.
>>> There were some pretty careless estimates made just from the sizes of various
>>> teeth in homininae, and it might have actually come as a surprise to some paleontologists
>>> to learn that *Gigantopithecus* really was the size one would expect from its huge molars.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> I'm pretty sure that the word the authors were looking for is "impacted."
>>>> I think they mean "implanted", likely a new tooth that was yet to emerge
>>>> from the jaw.
>>>
>>> Did you study the illustrations to see whether this is what they meant?
>>>
>>> By the way, do you have some grounds for thinking "implanted" is a synonym for "unerupted"?
>
>> It seems clear that's what they meant, as it was exposed only because of
>> a break in the maxilla.
>
> You are evading the question. Are you afraid to say that the authors may have been guilty
> of a malapropism?

Oh, sorry. I didn't know that's what you were proposing. So you're
trying to score more points off people who aren't here?

>> I see you have located the actual paper,
>> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.210923#d1e809
>
> I see you didn't notice that I included it in the OP. Did I make it too boring for you to read
> it without getting sleepy?

Don't see it here. Did someone snip it?

>>> Back to the specimen. On a thread about a Cambrian invertebrate [IIRC a stem arthropod]
>>> you were disappointed by the lack of a phylogenetic analysis. The following should put you
>>> in hog heaven where this "shark-tooth" is concerned:
>>>
>>> "Two phylogenetic analyses, each including the new taxon Ulughbegsaurus, were conducted with the
>>> software TNT v. 1.5 [41] (electronic supplementary material, text S1: figures S3 and S4). Our first
>>> analysis was performed using the data matrix proposed by Carrano et al. [42] then modified by
>>> Hendrickx & Mateus [10] where Eoraptor represents the outgroup; the characters are treated as
>>> unordered. Our second analysis was conducted using the matrix originally proposed by Porfiri et al.
>>> [43] then modified by Chokchaloemwong et al. [40] where Ceratosaurus represents the outgroup;
>>> characters 2, 4, 6, 13, 15, 17, 27, 69, 106, 148, 155, 158, 160, 167, 169, 171, 179, 181, 194, 195, 205, 208,
>>> 217, 233, 241, 259, 267, 271 were treated as ordered. A traditional heuristic search was done with 1000
>>> replicates of Wagner trees using random addition sequences, followed by the tree bisection and
>>> reconnection branch swapping that holds 10 trees per replicate. Consistency index and retention index
>>> were calculated with PAUP 4.0a [44]."
>>> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.210923 [Section 4, paragraph 1]
>>>
>>> What does "were treated as ordered" mean?
>
>> A multistate character can be either ordered or unordered. If unordered,
>> going from one state to any other takes one step. If ordered, going from
>> state 1 to state 3 requires two steps, etc.
>
> Ah, like state 1 feathers (dinofuzz, optimistically called protofeathers), state 2 feathers,
> state 3 feathers [barbs but no barbules, as in kiwis], state 4 feathers, and state 5 asymmetric flight remiges?

That depends on how you choose to code them. What you have there is a
multi-state character, but you have provided no information on whether
it's to be considered ordered or unordered in analysis.

> But you don't include any of these in your phylogenetic analyses, despite a "consensus" that the majority of
> coelurosaurs had at least state 1, eh?

Yes. The consensus is based on the phylogenetic distribution of known
feathers and optimization on a tree constructed from other data. The
sparse data for feathers just don't contribute much to supporting a tree
even if you include them.

>>> The section continued with:
>>>
>>> "The first phylogenetic analysis produced 6320 most parsimonious treeswith a strict consensus tree placing
>>> Ulughbegsaurus within a poorly resolved Neovenatoridae (Aerosteon, Australovenator, Chilantaisaurus,
>>> Fukuiraptor, Megaraptor and Neovenator), a clade within Carcharodontosauria (figure 3a).
>>>
>>> How can there be so many "most parsimonous trees"? Is there a quantitative measure of parsimony,
>>> or is it just an order ranking, with 6320 maximal trees, none of which is comparable to any of the others?
>
>> The quantitative measure is the number of steps (changes) required to
>> fit the data to the tree. Not sure what you mean by "maximal" here;
>
> Not all orderings are linear. Take the proper subsets of the set {1, 2, 3} with the order "is a subset of";
> by proper subset I mean a subset missing at least one element. The maximal proper subsets
> are {1,2}, {2,3} and {1,3}. They are maximal, because there is no proper subset that contains any
> of them without being that subset itself.

This has nothing at all to do with the meaning of "most parsimonious
trees". Nor does "maximal".

>> these are the trees that require the least number of steps. The trees
>> are not identical, but only a few polytomies can produce a lot of trees.
>> It seems that figure 3 shows strict consensus trees, i.e. the nodes that
>> all the trees agree on. As you can see, there's plenty of agreement.
>
>
>>> "Neovenatoridae
>>> was supported by 12 synapomorphies in this analysis, which includes two characters of the maxilla (i.e.
>>> small foramen of promaxillary fenestra and sculptured external surface of maxilla and nasal). The second
>>> phylogenetic analysis produced 284 most parsimonious trees with a strict consensus tree recovering
>>> Ulughbegsaurus within Carcharodontosauria where Ulughbegsaurus, Siamraptor, Eocarcharia, Neovenator,
>>> Concavenator and the clade of Acrocanthosaurus, Shaochilong and Carcharodontosaurinae all form a
>>> polytomy (figure 3b).
>>>
>>> Wow, big time disagreement with other "consensus" tree. Are such things taken
>>> in their stride by your favorite systematists?
>
>> Usually one attempts to determine the causes of conflict and resolve
>> them. In this case the analyses use different characters, and somebody
>> ought to look at that. Of course only the maxillary characters are known
>> for the focal taxon, so maybe they didn't feel like going to the trouble.
>
>
>>> "Carcharodontosauria is supported by 18 synapomorphies, including two characters
>>> of the maxilla (i.e. fused posterior paradental plates and approximately 20° ventral orientation at the jugal
>>> contact). A major difference in the results of these two phylogenetic analyses is that Megaraptora is placed
>>> within Carcharodontosauria and Tyrannosauroidea in the first and second analyses, respectively.
>>> Our results are consistent with the results of the original analyses where Megaraptora is placed in
>>> Allosauroidea by Carrano et al. [42] but in Tyrannosauroidea by Porfiri et al. [43].
>>>
>>> Good grief! IIRC allosaurs are in Carnosauria and tyrannosaurs in Coelurosauria, two giant separate
>>> clades.
>>>
>>> If this is the unsatisfactory status of Megaraptora, can we be sure Maniraptora is safely ensconced
>>> in Coelurosauria?
>
>> You would have to consult the original analyses, the ones cited in this
>> paper.
>
> It looks like you misunderstood my question, and are still optimistic about being
> able to correct either both [42] and one of the analyses, or both [43] and the other.
>
> Or did you misunderstand the paragraph which elicited "Good grief!" from me, now without
> the accidental blank line that appeared in the post to which you were replying?


Click here to read the complete article
Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan

<3f1419e2-b294-462f-93e7-e9a87a68734en@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3419&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3419

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1658:: with SMTP id c24mr4622904qko.354.1631623216858;
Tue, 14 Sep 2021 05:40:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:3d84:: with SMTP id k126mr21620109yba.43.1631623216619;
Tue, 14 Sep 2021 05:40:16 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 05:40:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <xa6dne6hrt9sut38nZ2dnUU7-e_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:1700:48c9:290:1d22:a473:6477:7b69;
posting-account=MmaSmwoAAABAWoWNw3B4MhJqLSp3_9Ze
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:1700:48c9:290:1d22:a473:6477:7b69
References: <b61ad741-c82a-4a7b-a276-59b71946f6dbn@googlegroups.com>
<2960ba6e-ec72-4279-9674-446d87887edfn@googlegroups.com> <93e86fc0-15ed-474e-8661-afc5c06a3520n@googlegroups.com>
<vqWdnbYnmN-0-aL8nZ2dnUU7-a_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <15ad4d40-06ef-4536-beec-c866798e42a5n@googlegroups.com>
<EqidneU2tr8BPaL8nZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <f494ca1a-755b-4d24-a353-4931a28bde42n@googlegroups.com>
<xa6dne6hrt9sut38nZ2dnUU7-e_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <3f1419e2-b294-462f-93e7-e9a87a68734en@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan
From: peter2ny...@gmail.com (Peter Nyikos)
Injection-Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 12:40:16 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 264
 by: Peter Nyikos - Tue, 14 Sep 2021 12:40 UTC

On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 12:41:28 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/13/21 8:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 3:04:02 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 9/13/21 11:39 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:46:07 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 9/13/21 6:32 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 11:57:10 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> >>>>>> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 6:57:32 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>> Carcharodontosauria (shark-toothed saurians) were the last of the
> >>>>>>> allosaurids, found in Laurasia up to the end of the Turonian
> >>>>>>> (early Late Cretaceous) but surviving in Gondwana to the end of the Cretaceous.
> >>>>>>> In a role reversal from what I've been accustomed to, the largest of these allosaurids
> >>>>>>> were considerably larger than the largest tyrannosauroids of the time.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The "new" find is actually a rediscovery:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "The chunk of jawbone was found in Uzbekistan's Kyzylkum Desert in the 1980s, and researchers rediscovered it in 2019 in an Uzbekistan museum collection."
> >>>>>>> https://www.microsoftnewskids.com/en-us/kids/animals/gigantic-shark-toothed-dinosaur-discovered-in-uzbekistan/ar-AAOhazl?ocid=entnewsntp
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The chunk is a partial maxilla, but from comparison with other
> >>>>>>> carcharodontosaurs, the following is hypothesized [*ibid*]:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "The 26-foot-long (8 meters) beast weighed 2,200 pounds (1,000 kilograms), making it longer than an African elephant and heavier than a bison. Researchers named it *Ulughbegsaurus* *uzbekistanensis*, after Ulugh Beg, a 15th-century astronomer, mathematician and sultan from what is now Uzbekistan.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "What caught scientists by surprise was that the dinosaur was much larger — twice the length and more than five times heavier — than its ecosystem's previously known apex predator: a tyrannosaur, the researchers found."
> >>>
> >>> If you look at the illustrations, you can see that it is a relatively small fragment of the upper jaw,
> >>> making me wonder how they got it so neatly into the phylogeny and thus were able
> >>> to extrapolate from known specimens.
> >>>
> >>> And I wonder how well they took into account the principle that as an organism evolves
> >>> to a much greater size, some parts of the anatomy increase more than others.
> >>> There were some pretty careless estimates made just from the sizes of various
> >>> teeth in homininae, and it might have actually come as a surprise to some paleontologists
> >>> to learn that *Gigantopithecus* really was the size one would expect from its huge molars.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> I'm pretty sure that the word the authors were looking for is "impacted."
> >>>> I think they mean "implanted", likely a new tooth that was yet to emerge
> >>>> from the jaw.
> >>>
> >>> Did you study the illustrations to see whether this is what they meant?
> >>>
> >>> By the way, do you have some grounds for thinking "implanted" is a synonym for "unerupted"?
> >
> >> It seems clear that's what they meant, as it was exposed only because of
> >> a break in the maxilla.
> >
> > You are evading the question. Are you afraid to say that the authors may have been guilty
> > of a malapropism?

<snip continuing evasion of question>

> >> I see you have located the actual paper,
> >> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.210923#d1e809
> >
> > I see you didn't notice that I included it in the OP. Did I make it too boring for you to read
> > it without getting sleepy?

> Don't see it here. Did someone snip it?

You can't see the OP? I can see it here in Google Groups. Looks like Giganews is letting you down.

> >>> Back to the specimen. On a thread about a Cambrian invertebrate [IIRC a stem arthropod]
> >>> you were disappointed by the lack of a phylogenetic analysis. The following should put you
> >>> in hog heaven where this "shark-tooth" is concerned:
> >>>
> >>> "Two phylogenetic analyses, each including the new taxon Ulughbegsaurus, were conducted with the
> >>> software TNT v. 1.5 [41] (electronic supplementary material, text S1: figures S3 and S4). Our first
> >>> analysis was performed using the data matrix proposed by Carrano et al. [42] then modified by
> >>> Hendrickx & Mateus [10] where Eoraptor represents the outgroup; the characters are treated as
> >>> unordered. Our second analysis was conducted using the matrix originally proposed by Porfiri et al.
> >>> [43] then modified by Chokchaloemwong et al. [40] where Ceratosaurus represents the outgroup;
> >>> characters 2, 4, 6, 13, 15, 17, 27, 69, 106, 148, 155, 158, 160, 167, 169, 171, 179, 181, 194, 195, 205, 208,
> >>> 217, 233, 241, 259, 267, 271 were treated as ordered. A traditional heuristic search was done with 1000
> >>> replicates of Wagner trees using random addition sequences, followed by the tree bisection and
> >>> reconnection branch swapping that holds 10 trees per replicate. Consistency index and retention index
> >>> were calculated with PAUP 4.0a [44]."
> >>> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.210923 [Section 4, paragraph 1]
> >>>
> >>> What does "were treated as ordered" mean?
> >
> >> A multistate character can be either ordered or unordered. If unordered,
> >> going from one state to any other takes one step. If ordered, going from
> >> state 1 to state 3 requires two steps, etc.
> >
> > Ah, like state 1 feathers (dinofuzz, optimistically called protofeathers), state 2 feathers,
> > state 3 feathers [barbs but no barbules, as in kiwis], state 4 feathers, and state 5 asymmetric flight remiges?

> That depends on how you choose to code them. What you have there is a
> multi-state character, but you have provided no information on whether
> it's to be considered ordered or unordered in analysis.

What, don't you remember Prum's hypothetical stages in the evolution of feathers?
You seemed to be quite a fan of his about half a dozen years ago.

> > But you don't include any of these in your phylogenetic analyses, despite a "consensus" that the majority of
> > coelurosaurs had at least state 1, eh?

> Yes. The consensus is based on the phylogenetic distribution of known
> feathers and optimization on a tree constructed from other data. The
> sparse data for feathers just don't contribute much to supporting a tree
> even if you include them.

So you think that, unlike the case of mammalian hair, loss of feathers in non-avian dinosaurs
was a great rarity?

> >>> The section continued with:
> >>>
> >>> "The first phylogenetic analysis produced 6320 most parsimonious treeswith a strict consensus tree placing
> >>> Ulughbegsaurus within a poorly resolved Neovenatoridae (Aerosteon, Australovenator, Chilantaisaurus,
> >>> Fukuiraptor, Megaraptor and Neovenator), a clade within Carcharodontosauria (figure 3a).
> >>>
> >>> How can there be so many "most parsimonous trees"? Is there a quantitative measure of parsimony,
> >>> or is it just an order ranking, with 6320 maximal trees, none of which is comparable to any of the others?
> >
> >> The quantitative measure is the number of steps (changes) required to
> >> fit the data to the tree. Not sure what you mean by "maximal" here;
> >
> > Not all orderings are linear. Take the proper subsets of the set {1, 2, 3} with the order "is a subset of";
> > by proper subset I mean a subset missing at least one element. The maximal proper subsets
> > are {1,2}, {2,3} and {1,3}. They are maximal, because there is no proper subset that contains any
> > of them without being that subset itself.

> This has nothing at all to do with the meaning of "most parsimonious
> trees". Nor does "maximal".

Thanks for clearing up that much. But it seems that biologists sometimes work with an
impoverished model where you try too hard to shoehorn things into linear order,
and even to assign numbers to them. [Mohs scale of hardness was a lot like that,
until some physics-savvy person fixed it up.]


Click here to read the complete article
Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan

<zOidnefHCMM-Pt38nZ2dnUU7-V_NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3420&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3420

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 08:29:07 -0500
Subject: Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
References: <b61ad741-c82a-4a7b-a276-59b71946f6dbn@googlegroups.com>
<2960ba6e-ec72-4279-9674-446d87887edfn@googlegroups.com>
<93e86fc0-15ed-474e-8661-afc5c06a3520n@googlegroups.com>
<vqWdnbYnmN-0-aL8nZ2dnUU7-a_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<15ad4d40-06ef-4536-beec-c866798e42a5n@googlegroups.com>
<EqidneU2tr8BPaL8nZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f494ca1a-755b-4d24-a353-4931a28bde42n@googlegroups.com>
<xa6dne6hrt9sut38nZ2dnUU7-e_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3f1419e2-b294-462f-93e7-e9a87a68734en@googlegroups.com>
From: jharsh...@pacbell.net (John Harshman)
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 06:29:06 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3f1419e2-b294-462f-93e7-e9a87a68734en@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <zOidnefHCMM-Pt38nZ2dnUU7-V_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 193
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-67DHjcA6aSK3v3lduHiK/8LnF0gR+O5WK2/oNNpRFt02mgTTi9qZ6yJqc7Dwjr/dHxPZEJhdMo+AUpd!QXqqHludGZaQtw/tnH94a9Q361AfqiRsMttoPbwum7k5ZwWI0vG+FYpIgDYXzbLWe6dX7QQ0LRo=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 12765
X-Received-Bytes: 12947
 by: John Harshman - Tue, 14 Sep 2021 13:29 UTC

On 9/14/21 5:40 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 12:41:28 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/13/21 8:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 3:04:02 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 9/13/21 11:39 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:46:07 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/13/21 6:32 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 11:57:10 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 6:57:32 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Carcharodontosauria (shark-toothed saurians) were the last of the
>>>>>>>>> allosaurids, found in Laurasia up to the end of the Turonian
>>>>>>>>> (early Late Cretaceous) but surviving in Gondwana to the end of the Cretaceous.
>>>>>>>>> In a role reversal from what I've been accustomed to, the largest of these allosaurids
>>>>>>>>> were considerably larger than the largest tyrannosauroids of the time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The "new" find is actually a rediscovery:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "The chunk of jawbone was found in Uzbekistan's Kyzylkum Desert in the 1980s, and researchers rediscovered it in 2019 in an Uzbekistan museum collection."
>>>>>>>>> https://www.microsoftnewskids.com/en-us/kids/animals/gigantic-shark-toothed-dinosaur-discovered-in-uzbekistan/ar-AAOhazl?ocid=entnewsntp
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The chunk is a partial maxilla, but from comparison with other
>>>>>>>>> carcharodontosaurs, the following is hypothesized [*ibid*]:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "The 26-foot-long (8 meters) beast weighed 2,200 pounds (1,000 kilograms), making it longer than an African elephant and heavier than a bison. Researchers named it *Ulughbegsaurus* *uzbekistanensis*, after Ulugh Beg, a 15th-century astronomer, mathematician and sultan from what is now Uzbekistan.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "What caught scientists by surprise was that the dinosaur was much larger — twice the length and more than five times heavier — than its ecosystem's previously known apex predator: a tyrannosaur, the researchers found."
>>>>>
>>>>> If you look at the illustrations, you can see that it is a relatively small fragment of the upper jaw,
>>>>> making me wonder how they got it so neatly into the phylogeny and thus were able
>>>>> to extrapolate from known specimens.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I wonder how well they took into account the principle that as an organism evolves
>>>>> to a much greater size, some parts of the anatomy increase more than others.
>>>>> There were some pretty careless estimates made just from the sizes of various
>>>>> teeth in homininae, and it might have actually come as a surprise to some paleontologists
>>>>> to learn that *Gigantopithecus* really was the size one would expect from its huge molars.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm pretty sure that the word the authors were looking for is "impacted."
>>>>>> I think they mean "implanted", likely a new tooth that was yet to emerge
>>>>>> from the jaw.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you study the illustrations to see whether this is what they meant?
>>>>>
>>>>> By the way, do you have some grounds for thinking "implanted" is a synonym for "unerupted"?
>>>
>>>> It seems clear that's what they meant, as it was exposed only because of
>>>> a break in the maxilla.
>>>
>>> You are evading the question. Are you afraid to say that the authors may have been guilty
>>> of a malapropism?
>
>
> <snip continuing evasion of question>
>
>
>>>> I see you have located the actual paper,
>>>> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.210923#d1e809
>>>
>>> I see you didn't notice that I included it in the OP. Did I make it too boring for you to read
>>> it without getting sleepy?
>
>> Don't see it here. Did someone snip it?
>
> You can't see the OP? I can see it here in Google Groups. Looks like Giganews is letting you down.
>
>
>>>>> Back to the specimen. On a thread about a Cambrian invertebrate [IIRC a stem arthropod]
>>>>> you were disappointed by the lack of a phylogenetic analysis. The following should put you
>>>>> in hog heaven where this "shark-tooth" is concerned:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Two phylogenetic analyses, each including the new taxon Ulughbegsaurus, were conducted with the
>>>>> software TNT v. 1.5 [41] (electronic supplementary material, text S1: figures S3 and S4). Our first
>>>>> analysis was performed using the data matrix proposed by Carrano et al. [42] then modified by
>>>>> Hendrickx & Mateus [10] where Eoraptor represents the outgroup; the characters are treated as
>>>>> unordered. Our second analysis was conducted using the matrix originally proposed by Porfiri et al.
>>>>> [43] then modified by Chokchaloemwong et al. [40] where Ceratosaurus represents the outgroup;
>>>>> characters 2, 4, 6, 13, 15, 17, 27, 69, 106, 148, 155, 158, 160, 167, 169, 171, 179, 181, 194, 195, 205, 208,
>>>>> 217, 233, 241, 259, 267, 271 were treated as ordered. A traditional heuristic search was done with 1000
>>>>> replicates of Wagner trees using random addition sequences, followed by the tree bisection and
>>>>> reconnection branch swapping that holds 10 trees per replicate. Consistency index and retention index
>>>>> were calculated with PAUP 4.0a [44]."
>>>>> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.210923 [Section 4, paragraph 1]
>>>>>
>>>>> What does "were treated as ordered" mean?
>>>
>>>> A multistate character can be either ordered or unordered. If unordered,
>>>> going from one state to any other takes one step. If ordered, going from
>>>> state 1 to state 3 requires two steps, etc.
>>>
>>> Ah, like state 1 feathers (dinofuzz, optimistically called protofeathers), state 2 feathers,
>>> state 3 feathers [barbs but no barbules, as in kiwis], state 4 feathers, and state 5 asymmetric flight remiges?
>
>> That depends on how you choose to code them. What you have there is a
>> multi-state character, but you have provided no information on whether
>> it's to be considered ordered or unordered in analysis.
>
> What, don't you remember Prum's hypothetical stages in the evolution of feathers?
> You seemed to be quite a fan of his about half a dozen years ago.

Again, it all depends on how you choose to code it. Prum's (and Brush's)
stages could be considered as an ordered or unordered character.

>>> But you don't include any of these in your phylogenetic analyses, despite a "consensus" that the majority of
>>> coelurosaurs had at least state 1, eh?
>
>> Yes. The consensus is based on the phylogenetic distribution of known
>> feathers and optimization on a tree constructed from other data. The
>> sparse data for feathers just don't contribute much to supporting a tree
>> even if you include them.
>
> So you think that, unlike the case of mammalian hair, loss of feathers in non-avian dinosaurs
> was a great rarity?

No. Where are you getting all these notions?

>>>>> The section continued with:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The first phylogenetic analysis produced 6320 most parsimonious treeswith a strict consensus tree placing
>>>>> Ulughbegsaurus within a poorly resolved Neovenatoridae (Aerosteon, Australovenator, Chilantaisaurus,
>>>>> Fukuiraptor, Megaraptor and Neovenator), a clade within Carcharodontosauria (figure 3a).
>>>>>
>>>>> How can there be so many "most parsimonous trees"? Is there a quantitative measure of parsimony,
>>>>> or is it just an order ranking, with 6320 maximal trees, none of which is comparable to any of the others?
>>>
>>>> The quantitative measure is the number of steps (changes) required to
>>>> fit the data to the tree. Not sure what you mean by "maximal" here;
>>>
>>> Not all orderings are linear. Take the proper subsets of the set {1, 2, 3} with the order "is a subset of";
>>> by proper subset I mean a subset missing at least one element. The maximal proper subsets
>>> are {1,2}, {2,3} and {1,3}. They are maximal, because there is no proper subset that contains any
>>> of them without being that subset itself.
>
>> This has nothing at all to do with the meaning of "most parsimonious
>> trees". Nor does "maximal".
>
> Thanks for clearing up that much. But it seems that biologists sometimes work with an
> impoverished model where you try too hard to shoehorn things into linear order,
> and even to assign numbers to them. [Mohs scale of hardness was a lot like that,
> until some physics-savvy person fixed it up.]
>
> On the other hand, in a phylogenetic tree, EVERY SPECIES is incomparable to every
> other species. ALL species are at maximal points, at the tips of all the branches.
> I could kick myself for not thinking of this example right off the bat.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan

<cfcf6e91-8c92-4a63-bb9e-52cf38548402n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3421&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3421

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4111:: with SMTP id q17mr5211279qtl.264.1631631011137;
Tue, 14 Sep 2021 07:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:102f:: with SMTP id x15mr20443457ybt.130.1631631009553;
Tue, 14 Sep 2021 07:50:09 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 07:50:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <zOidnefHCMM-Pt38nZ2dnUU7-V_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:1700:48c9:290:1d22:a473:6477:7b69;
posting-account=MmaSmwoAAABAWoWNw3B4MhJqLSp3_9Ze
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:1700:48c9:290:1d22:a473:6477:7b69
References: <b61ad741-c82a-4a7b-a276-59b71946f6dbn@googlegroups.com>
<2960ba6e-ec72-4279-9674-446d87887edfn@googlegroups.com> <93e86fc0-15ed-474e-8661-afc5c06a3520n@googlegroups.com>
<vqWdnbYnmN-0-aL8nZ2dnUU7-a_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <15ad4d40-06ef-4536-beec-c866798e42a5n@googlegroups.com>
<EqidneU2tr8BPaL8nZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <f494ca1a-755b-4d24-a353-4931a28bde42n@googlegroups.com>
<xa6dne6hrt9sut38nZ2dnUU7-e_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <3f1419e2-b294-462f-93e7-e9a87a68734en@googlegroups.com>
<zOidnefHCMM-Pt38nZ2dnUU7-V_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <cfcf6e91-8c92-4a63-bb9e-52cf38548402n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan
From: peter2ny...@gmail.com (Peter Nyikos)
Injection-Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 14:50:11 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 325
 by: Peter Nyikos - Tue, 14 Sep 2021 14:50 UTC

On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 9:29:13 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/14/21 5:40 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 12:41:28 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 9/13/21 8:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 3:04:02 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 9/13/21 11:39 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:46:07 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 9/13/21 6:32 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 11:57:10 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 6:57:32 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Carcharodontosauria (shark-toothed saurians) were the last of the
> >>>>>>>>> allosaurids, found in Laurasia up to the end of the Turonian
> >>>>>>>>> (early Late Cretaceous) but surviving in Gondwana to the end of the Cretaceous.
> >>>>>>>>> In a role reversal from what I've been accustomed to, the largest of these allosaurids
> >>>>>>>>> were considerably larger than the largest tyrannosauroids of the time.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The "new" find is actually a rediscovery:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "The chunk of jawbone was found in Uzbekistan's Kyzylkum Desert in the 1980s, and researchers rediscovered it in 2019 in an Uzbekistan museum collection."
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.microsoftnewskids.com/en-us/kids/animals/gigantic-shark-toothed-dinosaur-discovered-in-uzbekistan/ar-AAOhazl?ocid=entnewsntp
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The chunk is a partial maxilla, but from comparison with other
> >>>>>>>>> carcharodontosaurs, the following is hypothesized [*ibid*]:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "The 26-foot-long (8 meters) beast weighed 2,200 pounds (1,000 kilograms), making it longer than an African elephant and heavier than a bison. Researchers named it *Ulughbegsaurus* *uzbekistanensis*, after Ulugh Beg, a 15th-century astronomer, mathematician and sultan from what is now Uzbekistan.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "What caught scientists by surprise was that the dinosaur was much larger — twice the length and more than five times heavier — than its ecosystem's previously known apex predator: a tyrannosaur, the researchers found."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you look at the illustrations, you can see that it is a relatively small fragment of the upper jaw,
> >>>>> making me wonder how they got it so neatly into the phylogeny and thus were able
> >>>>> to extrapolate from known specimens.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And I wonder how well they took into account the principle that as an organism evolves
> >>>>> to a much greater size, some parts of the anatomy increase more than others.
> >>>>> There were some pretty careless estimates made just from the sizes of various
> >>>>> teeth in homininae, and it might have actually come as a surprise to some paleontologists
> >>>>> to learn that *Gigantopithecus* really was the size one would expect from its huge molars.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'm pretty sure that the word the authors were looking for is "impacted."
> >>>>>> I think they mean "implanted", likely a new tooth that was yet to emerge
> >>>>>> from the jaw.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Did you study the illustrations to see whether this is what they meant?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> By the way, do you have some grounds for thinking "implanted" is a synonym for "unerupted"?
> >>>
> >>>> It seems clear that's what they meant, as it was exposed only because of
> >>>> a break in the maxilla.
> >>>
> >>> You are evading the question. Are you afraid to say that the authors may have been guilty
> >>> of a malapropism?
> >
> >
> > <snip continuing evasion of question>
> >
> >
> >>>> I see you have located the actual paper,
> >>>> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.210923#d1e809
> >>>
> >>> I see you didn't notice that I included it in the OP. Did I make it too boring for you to read
> >>> it without getting sleepy?
> >
> >> Don't see it here. Did someone snip it?
> >
> > You can't see the OP?

No answer.

>> I can see it here in Google Groups. Looks like Giganews is letting you down.

Well? is it true that Giganews doesn't show the OP?

> >>>>> Back to the specimen. On a thread about a Cambrian invertebrate [IIRC a stem arthropod]
> >>>>> you were disappointed by the lack of a phylogenetic analysis. The following should put you
> >>>>> in hog heaven where this "shark-tooth" is concerned:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Two phylogenetic analyses, each including the new taxon Ulughbegsaurus, were conducted with the
> >>>>> software TNT v. 1.5 [41] (electronic supplementary material, text S1: figures S3 and S4). Our first
> >>>>> analysis was performed using the data matrix proposed by Carrano et al. [42] then modified by
> >>>>> Hendrickx & Mateus [10] where Eoraptor represents the outgroup; the characters are treated as
> >>>>> unordered. Our second analysis was conducted using the matrix originally proposed by Porfiri et al.
> >>>>> [43] then modified by Chokchaloemwong et al. [40] where Ceratosaurus represents the outgroup;
> >>>>> characters 2, 4, 6, 13, 15, 17, 27, 69, 106, 148, 155, 158, 160, 167, 169, 171, 179, 181, 194, 195, 205, 208,
> >>>>> 217, 233, 241, 259, 267, 271 were treated as ordered. A traditional heuristic search was done with 1000
> >>>>> replicates of Wagner trees using random addition sequences, followed by the tree bisection and
> >>>>> reconnection branch swapping that holds 10 trees per replicate. Consistency index and retention index
> >>>>> were calculated with PAUP 4.0a [44]."
> >>>>> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.210923 [Section 4, paragraph 1]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What does "were treated as ordered" mean?
> >>>
> >>>> A multistate character can be either ordered or unordered. If unordered,
> >>>> going from one state to any other takes one step. If ordered, going from
> >>>> state 1 to state 3 requires two steps, etc.
> >>>
> >>> Ah, like state 1 feathers (dinofuzz, optimistically called protofeathers), state 2 feathers,
> >>> state 3 feathers [barbs but no barbules, as in kiwis], state 4 feathers, and state 5 asymmetric flight remiges?
> >
> >> That depends on how you choose to code them. What you have there is a
> >> multi-state character, but you have provided no information on whether
> >> it's to be considered ordered or unordered in analysis.
> >
> > What, don't you remember Prum's hypothetical stages in the evolution of feathers?
> > You seemed to be quite a fan of his about half a dozen years ago.

> Again, it all depends on how you choose to code it. Prum's (and Brush's)
> stages could be considered as an ordered or unordered character.

It looks like a no-brainer: count the steps, like you said. It's plain to see in which direction
the characters changed.

> >>> But you don't include any of these in your phylogenetic analyses, despite a "consensus" that the majority of
> >>> coelurosaurs had at least state 1, eh?
> >
> >> Yes. The consensus is based on the phylogenetic distribution of known
> >> feathers and optimization on a tree constructed from other data. The
> >> sparse data for feathers just don't contribute much to supporting a tree
> >> even if you include them.
> >
> > So you think that, unlike the case of mammalian hair, loss of feathers in non-avian dinosaurs
> > was a great rarity?

> No. Where are you getting all these notions?


Click here to read the complete article
Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan

<M5mdnU43r-c8XN38nZ2dnUU7-QnNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3422&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3422

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 10:37:05 -0500
Subject: Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
References: <b61ad741-c82a-4a7b-a276-59b71946f6dbn@googlegroups.com>
<2960ba6e-ec72-4279-9674-446d87887edfn@googlegroups.com>
<93e86fc0-15ed-474e-8661-afc5c06a3520n@googlegroups.com>
<vqWdnbYnmN-0-aL8nZ2dnUU7-a_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<15ad4d40-06ef-4536-beec-c866798e42a5n@googlegroups.com>
<EqidneU2tr8BPaL8nZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f494ca1a-755b-4d24-a353-4931a28bde42n@googlegroups.com>
<xa6dne6hrt9sut38nZ2dnUU7-e_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3f1419e2-b294-462f-93e7-e9a87a68734en@googlegroups.com>
<zOidnefHCMM-Pt38nZ2dnUU7-V_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<cfcf6e91-8c92-4a63-bb9e-52cf38548402n@googlegroups.com>
From: jharsh...@pacbell.net (John Harshman)
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 08:37:04 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <cfcf6e91-8c92-4a63-bb9e-52cf38548402n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <M5mdnU43r-c8XN38nZ2dnUU7-QnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 260
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-alSLmaift3gEIdtVTo2Fx495YTtPiJoWAY91oiQmeoz7vb3tWtBITeA4hOZzlixk3cwQ+ARB5ajJakh!5qy++Ujpf0kQwF84Xm1pUxCBeiEBNVOCJWXPbpqJ98HUE5rw+oHOZVcN/wrYSA6ZChO6Y0RdRRY=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 16440
 by: John Harshman - Tue, 14 Sep 2021 15:37 UTC

On 9/14/21 7:50 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 9:29:13 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/14/21 5:40 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 12:41:28 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 9/13/21 8:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 3:04:02 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/13/21 11:39 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:46:07 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/13/21 6:32 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 11:57:10 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 6:57:32 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Carcharodontosauria (shark-toothed saurians) were the last of the
>>>>>>>>>>> allosaurids, found in Laurasia up to the end of the Turonian
>>>>>>>>>>> (early Late Cretaceous) but surviving in Gondwana to the end of the Cretaceous.
>>>>>>>>>>> In a role reversal from what I've been accustomed to, the largest of these allosaurids
>>>>>>>>>>> were considerably larger than the largest tyrannosauroids of the time.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The "new" find is actually a rediscovery:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "The chunk of jawbone was found in Uzbekistan's Kyzylkum Desert in the 1980s, and researchers rediscovered it in 2019 in an Uzbekistan museum collection."
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.microsoftnewskids.com/en-us/kids/animals/gigantic-shark-toothed-dinosaur-discovered-in-uzbekistan/ar-AAOhazl?ocid=entnewsntp
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The chunk is a partial maxilla, but from comparison with other
>>>>>>>>>>> carcharodontosaurs, the following is hypothesized [*ibid*]:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "The 26-foot-long (8 meters) beast weighed 2,200 pounds (1,000 kilograms), making it longer than an African elephant and heavier than a bison. Researchers named it *Ulughbegsaurus* *uzbekistanensis*, after Ulugh Beg, a 15th-century astronomer, mathematician and sultan from what is now Uzbekistan.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "What caught scientists by surprise was that the dinosaur was much larger — twice the length and more than five times heavier — than its ecosystem's previously known apex predator: a tyrannosaur, the researchers found."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you look at the illustrations, you can see that it is a relatively small fragment of the upper jaw,
>>>>>>> making me wonder how they got it so neatly into the phylogeny and thus were able
>>>>>>> to extrapolate from known specimens.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I wonder how well they took into account the principle that as an organism evolves
>>>>>>> to a much greater size, some parts of the anatomy increase more than others.
>>>>>>> There were some pretty careless estimates made just from the sizes of various
>>>>>>> teeth in homininae, and it might have actually come as a surprise to some paleontologists
>>>>>>> to learn that *Gigantopithecus* really was the size one would expect from its huge molars.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm pretty sure that the word the authors were looking for is "impacted."
>>>>>>>> I think they mean "implanted", likely a new tooth that was yet to emerge
>>>>>>>> from the jaw.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did you study the illustrations to see whether this is what they meant?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By the way, do you have some grounds for thinking "implanted" is a synonym for "unerupted"?
>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems clear that's what they meant, as it was exposed only because of
>>>>>> a break in the maxilla.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are evading the question. Are you afraid to say that the authors may have been guilty
>>>>> of a malapropism?
>>>
>>>
>>> <snip continuing evasion of question>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> I see you have located the actual paper,
>>>>>> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.210923#d1e809
>>>>>
>>>>> I see you didn't notice that I included it in the OP. Did I make it too boring for you to read
>>>>> it without getting sleepy?
>>>
>>>> Don't see it here. Did someone snip it?
>>>
>>> You can't see the OP?
>
> No answer.

I wasn't referring to the OP. I was referring to the post I was replying to.

>>> I can see it here in Google Groups. Looks like Giganews is letting you down.
>
> Well? is it true that Giganews doesn't show the OP?

I have Thunderbird set to posts disappear after 30 days. But sure, I
could look at the OP since it's less than 30 days old.

>>>>>>> Back to the specimen. On a thread about a Cambrian invertebrate [IIRC a stem arthropod]
>>>>>>> you were disappointed by the lack of a phylogenetic analysis. The following should put you
>>>>>>> in hog heaven where this "shark-tooth" is concerned:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Two phylogenetic analyses, each including the new taxon Ulughbegsaurus, were conducted with the
>>>>>>> software TNT v. 1.5 [41] (electronic supplementary material, text S1: figures S3 and S4). Our first
>>>>>>> analysis was performed using the data matrix proposed by Carrano et al. [42] then modified by
>>>>>>> Hendrickx & Mateus [10] where Eoraptor represents the outgroup; the characters are treated as
>>>>>>> unordered. Our second analysis was conducted using the matrix originally proposed by Porfiri et al.
>>>>>>> [43] then modified by Chokchaloemwong et al. [40] where Ceratosaurus represents the outgroup;
>>>>>>> characters 2, 4, 6, 13, 15, 17, 27, 69, 106, 148, 155, 158, 160, 167, 169, 171, 179, 181, 194, 195, 205, 208,
>>>>>>> 217, 233, 241, 259, 267, 271 were treated as ordered. A traditional heuristic search was done with 1000
>>>>>>> replicates of Wagner trees using random addition sequences, followed by the tree bisection and
>>>>>>> reconnection branch swapping that holds 10 trees per replicate. Consistency index and retention index
>>>>>>> were calculated with PAUP 4.0a [44]."
>>>>>>> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.210923 [Section 4, paragraph 1]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What does "were treated as ordered" mean?
>>>>>
>>>>>> A multistate character can be either ordered or unordered. If unordered,
>>>>>> going from one state to any other takes one step. If ordered, going from
>>>>>> state 1 to state 3 requires two steps, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, like state 1 feathers (dinofuzz, optimistically called protofeathers), state 2 feathers,
>>>>> state 3 feathers [barbs but no barbules, as in kiwis], state 4 feathers, and state 5 asymmetric flight remiges?
>>>
>>>> That depends on how you choose to code them. What you have there is a
>>>> multi-state character, but you have provided no information on whether
>>>> it's to be considered ordered or unordered in analysis.
>>>
>>> What, don't you remember Prum's hypothetical stages in the evolution of feathers?
>>> You seemed to be quite a fan of his about half a dozen years ago.
>
>> Again, it all depends on how you choose to code it. Prum's (and Brush's)
>> stages could be considered as an ordered or unordered character.
>
> It looks like a no-brainer: count the steps, like you said. It's plain to see in which direction
> the characters changed.

Yes, you could definitely code that as an ordered character. There are
potential complications that I won't go into.

>>>>> But you don't include any of these in your phylogenetic analyses, despite a "consensus" that the majority of
>>>>> coelurosaurs had at least state 1, eh?
>>>
>>>> Yes. The consensus is based on the phylogenetic distribution of known
>>>> feathers and optimization on a tree constructed from other data. The
>>>> sparse data for feathers just don't contribute much to supporting a tree
>>>> even if you include them.
>>>
>>> So you think that, unlike the case of mammalian hair, loss of feathers in non-avian dinosaurs
>>> was a great rarity?
>
>> No. Where are you getting all these notions?
>
> Isn't it obvious? absence of feathers in fossil after fossil of the same species
> could mean actual loss of feathers.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan

<e2973aae-8dda-4ebc-b788-3b9b661e251dn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3423&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3423

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:be85:: with SMTP id n5mr7405092qvi.59.1631654621314;
Tue, 14 Sep 2021 14:23:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:cd82:: with SMTP id d124mr1622211ybf.491.1631654621112;
Tue, 14 Sep 2021 14:23:41 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 14:23:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <xa6dne6hrt9sut38nZ2dnUU7-e_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:1700:48c9:290:f10b:57d7:9a28:b9db;
posting-account=MmaSmwoAAABAWoWNw3B4MhJqLSp3_9Ze
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:1700:48c9:290:f10b:57d7:9a28:b9db
References: <b61ad741-c82a-4a7b-a276-59b71946f6dbn@googlegroups.com>
<2960ba6e-ec72-4279-9674-446d87887edfn@googlegroups.com> <93e86fc0-15ed-474e-8661-afc5c06a3520n@googlegroups.com>
<vqWdnbYnmN-0-aL8nZ2dnUU7-a_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <15ad4d40-06ef-4536-beec-c866798e42a5n@googlegroups.com>
<EqidneU2tr8BPaL8nZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <f494ca1a-755b-4d24-a353-4931a28bde42n@googlegroups.com>
<xa6dne6hrt9sut38nZ2dnUU7-e_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <e2973aae-8dda-4ebc-b788-3b9b661e251dn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan
From: peter2ny...@gmail.com (Peter Nyikos)
Injection-Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 21:23:41 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 40
 by: Peter Nyikos - Tue, 14 Sep 2021 21:23 UTC

Just to clear up a "don't see it here" from you.

On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 12:41:28 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/13/21 8:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 3:04:02 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 9/13/21 11:39 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> >> I see you have located the actual paper,
> >> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.210923#d1e809
> >
> > I see you didn't notice that I included it in the OP. Did I make it too boring for you to read
> > it without getting sleepy?

> Don't see it here. Did someone snip it?

Nobody snipped it. It's further down, at the bottom of what you see below.

> >>> Back to the specimen. On a thread about a Cambrian invertebrate [IIRC a stem arthropod]
> >>> you were disappointed by the lack of a phylogenetic analysis. The following should put you
> >>> in hog heaven where this "shark-tooth" is concerned:
> >>>
> >>> "Two phylogenetic analyses, each including the new taxon Ulughbegsaurus, were conducted with the
> >>> software TNT v. 1.5 [41] (electronic supplementary material, text S1: figures S3 and S4). Our first
> >>> analysis was performed using the data matrix proposed by Carrano et al. [42] then modified by
> >>> Hendrickx & Mateus [10] where Eoraptor represents the outgroup; the characters are treated as
> >>> unordered. Our second analysis was conducted using the matrix originally proposed by Porfiri et al.
> >>> [43] then modified by Chokchaloemwong et al. [40] where Ceratosaurus represents the outgroup;
> >>> characters 2, 4, 6, 13, 15, 17, 27, 69, 106, 148, 155, 158, 160, 167, 169, 171, 179, 181, 194, 195, 205, 208,
> >>> 217, 233, 241, 259, 267, 271 were treated as ordered. A traditional heuristic search was done with 1000
> >>> replicates of Wagner trees using random addition sequences, followed by the tree bisection and
> >>> reconnection branch swapping that holds 10 trees per replicate. Consistency index and retention index
> >>> were calculated with PAUP 4.0a [44]."
> >>> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.210923 [Section 4, paragraph 1]

See that last line?

I'll be reposting something further down in Section 4, that is the source of an even longer
failure to communicate. Later today.

Peter Nyikos

Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan

<407cf168-4efa-4248-883f-9173e76e1de0n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3424&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3424

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:20eb:: with SMTP id 11mr8057593qvk.52.1631658960604;
Tue, 14 Sep 2021 15:36:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:d054:: with SMTP id h81mr1857837ybg.411.1631658960341;
Tue, 14 Sep 2021 15:36:00 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 15:36:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <M5mdnU43r-c8XN38nZ2dnUU7-QnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:1700:48c9:290:f10b:57d7:9a28:b9db;
posting-account=MmaSmwoAAABAWoWNw3B4MhJqLSp3_9Ze
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:1700:48c9:290:f10b:57d7:9a28:b9db
References: <b61ad741-c82a-4a7b-a276-59b71946f6dbn@googlegroups.com>
<2960ba6e-ec72-4279-9674-446d87887edfn@googlegroups.com> <93e86fc0-15ed-474e-8661-afc5c06a3520n@googlegroups.com>
<vqWdnbYnmN-0-aL8nZ2dnUU7-a_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <15ad4d40-06ef-4536-beec-c866798e42a5n@googlegroups.com>
<EqidneU2tr8BPaL8nZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <f494ca1a-755b-4d24-a353-4931a28bde42n@googlegroups.com>
<xa6dne6hrt9sut38nZ2dnUU7-e_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <3f1419e2-b294-462f-93e7-e9a87a68734en@googlegroups.com>
<zOidnefHCMM-Pt38nZ2dnUU7-V_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <cfcf6e91-8c92-4a63-bb9e-52cf38548402n@googlegroups.com>
<M5mdnU43r-c8XN38nZ2dnUU7-QnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <407cf168-4efa-4248-883f-9173e76e1de0n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan
From: peter2ny...@gmail.com (Peter Nyikos)
Injection-Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 22:36:00 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 179
 by: Peter Nyikos - Tue, 14 Sep 2021 22:36 UTC

On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 11:37:11 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/14/21 7:50 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 9:29:13 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 9/14/21 5:40 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 12:41:28 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 9/13/21 8:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 3:04:02 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 9/13/21 11:39 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> >>>>>>> Back to the specimen. On a thread about a Cambrian invertebrate [IIRC a stem arthropod]
> >>>>>>> you were disappointed by the lack of a phylogenetic analysis. The following should put you
> >>>>>>> in hog heaven where this "shark-tooth" is concerned:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Two phylogenetic analyses, each including the new taxon Ulughbegsaurus, were conducted with the
> >>>>>>> software TNT v. 1.5 [41] (electronic supplementary material, text S1: figures S3 and S4). Our first
> >>>>>>> analysis was performed using the data matrix proposed by Carrano et al. [42] then modified by
> >>>>>>> Hendrickx & Mateus [10] where Eoraptor represents the outgroup; the characters are treated as
> >>>>>>> unordered. Our second analysis was conducted using the matrix originally proposed by Porfiri et al.
> >>>>>>> [43] then modified by Chokchaloemwong et al. [40] where Ceratosaurus represents the outgroup;
> >>>>>>> characters 2, 4, 6, 13, 15, 17, 27, 69, 106, 148, 155, 158, 160, 167, 169, 171, 179, 181, 194, 195, 205, 208,
> >>>>>>> 217, 233, 241, 259, 267, 271 were treated as ordered. A traditional heuristic search was done with 1000
> >>>>>>> replicates of Wagner trees using random addition sequences, followed by the tree bisection and
> >>>>>>> reconnection branch swapping that holds 10 trees per replicate. Consistency index and retention index
> >>>>>>> were calculated with PAUP 4.0a [44]."
> >>>>>>> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.210923 [Section 4, paragraph 1]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What does "were treated as ordered" mean?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> A multistate character can be either ordered or unordered. If unordered,
> >>>>>> going from one state to any other takes one step. If ordered, going from
> >>>>>> state 1 to state 3 requires two steps, etc.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ah, like state 1 feathers (dinofuzz, optimistically called protofeathers), state 2 feathers,
> >>>>> state 3 feathers [barbs but no barbules, as in kiwis], state 4 feathers, and state 5 asymmetric flight remiges?
> >>>
> >>>> That depends on how you choose to code them. What you have there is a
> >>>> multi-state character, but you have provided no information on whether
> >>>> it's to be considered ordered or unordered in analysis.
> >>>
> >>> What, don't you remember Prum's hypothetical stages in the evolution of feathers?
> >>> You seemed to be quite a fan of his about half a dozen years ago.
> >
> >> Again, it all depends on how you choose to code it. Prum's (and Brush's)
> >> stages could be considered as an ordered or unordered character.
> >
> > It looks like a no-brainer: count the steps, like you said. It's plain to see in which direction
> > the characters changed.

> Yes, you could definitely code that as an ordered character. There are
> potential complications that I won't go into.

> >>>>> But you don't include any of these in your phylogenetic analyses, despite a "consensus" that the majority of
> >>>>> coelurosaurs had at least state 1, eh?
> >>>
> >>>> Yes. The consensus is based on the phylogenetic distribution of known
> >>>> feathers and optimization on a tree constructed from other data. The
> >>>> sparse data for feathers just don't contribute much to supporting a tree
> >>>> even if you include them.
> >>>
> >>> So you think that, unlike the case of mammalian hair, loss of feathers in non-avian dinosaurs
> >>> was a great rarity?
> >
> >> No. Where are you getting all these notions?
> >
> > Isn't it obvious? absence of feathers in fossil after fossil of the same species
> > could mean actual loss of feathers.

> How would you distinguish loss of feathers from non-preservation?

It's not a certainty, but a hypothesis. As more and more good fossils
accumulate, the hypothesis is supported. You know, ye olde "scientific method".

> Usually we infer loss (when coding characters) only when there is
> preserved skin. And even there it tends to be a patch here and a patch
> there, so you don't know if there were feathers on some other part of
> the body.

So you seem to want certainty here, but not in telling whether X is a sister group of Y.

For example, there was a revolutionary pair of papers which upset the {theropod, sauropod, ornithischian}
sister group relationship.

Baron et al. 2017, "A new hypothesis of dinosaur relationships and early dinosaur evolution",
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-new-hypothesis-of-dinosaur-relationships-and-Baron-Norman/f03f6a706a883b18303e61b4cca6a56d942bf637

Langer et al. 2017, "Untangling the dinosaur family tree":
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Untangling-the-dinosaur-family-tree-Langer-Ezcurra/8c8ff01b0526f76d1a98c88c01d1978c9de75614

A couple of years ago, you said that these papers had been superseded and we are
back to the traditional division. But I don't recall what evidence you provided.
Can you cite a paper or two that put this Ornithoscelida hypothesis to rest, in your opinion?

Temporarily, at least. I expect you to think that a stake has been driven through
its heart, but I would like to see the opinion of some well known authority.

> > That's why I think it is a good idea to include feathers
> > [in the broad sense that seems to be the consensus these days]
> > in a phylogenetic analysis in which the taxa have enough preserved
> > of the places where one might expect feathers to have been attached in real life.
>
> > Really, what's the harm in doing that?

> No harm if you code most taxa as missing data. Just no benefit either.

Except that you might discover that there is no correlation between having
hairlike growths optimistically called "protofeathers" and having feathers
with barbs and barbules. Then the whole "feathered dinosaur" hypothesis could
be split in two: dinofuzz and feathers.

[Trivia: General Winfield Scott, Mexican War hero, was called "Old Fuss and Feathers."]

> >>>>>>> The section continued with:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "The first phylogenetic analysis produced 6320 most parsimonious treeswith a strict consensus tree placing
> >>>>>>> Ulughbegsaurus within a poorly resolved Neovenatoridae (Aerosteon, Australovenator, Chilantaisaurus,
> >>>>>>> Fukuiraptor, Megaraptor and Neovenator), a clade within Carcharodontosauria (figure 3a).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> How can there be so many "most parsimonous trees"? Is there a quantitative measure of parsimony,
> >>>>>>> or is it just an order ranking, with 6320 maximal trees, none of which is comparable to any of the others?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The quantitative measure is the number of steps (changes) required to
> >>>>>> fit the data to the tree. Not sure what you mean by "maximal" here;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not all orderings are linear. Take the proper subsets of the set {1, 2, 3} with the order "is a subset of";
> >>>>> by proper subset I mean a subset missing at least one element. The maximal proper subsets
> >>>>> are {1,2}, {2,3} and {1,3}. They are maximal, because there is no proper subset that contains any
> >>>>> of them without being that subset itself.
> >>>
> >>>> This has nothing at all to do with the meaning of "most parsimonious
> >>>> trees". Nor does "maximal".
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for clearing up that much. But it seems that biologists sometimes work with an
> >>> impoverished model where you try too hard to shoehorn things into linear order,
> >>> and even to assign numbers to them. [Mohs scale of hardness was a lot like that,
> >>> until some physics-savvy person fixed it up.]
> >>>
> >>> On the other hand, in a phylogenetic tree, EVERY SPECIES is incomparable to every
> >>> other species. ALL species are at maximal points, at the tips of all the branches.
> >>> I could kick myself for not thinking of this example right off the bat.
> >
> >> I really have no idea what you're talking about here,
> >
> > Explaining the difference between "maximal" and "maximum = above everything else"


Click here to read the complete article
Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan

<CsOdnSfPRoUssNz8nZ2dnUU7-Q_NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3425&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3425

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 18:18:09 -0500
Subject: Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
References: <b61ad741-c82a-4a7b-a276-59b71946f6dbn@googlegroups.com>
<2960ba6e-ec72-4279-9674-446d87887edfn@googlegroups.com>
<93e86fc0-15ed-474e-8661-afc5c06a3520n@googlegroups.com>
<vqWdnbYnmN-0-aL8nZ2dnUU7-a_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<15ad4d40-06ef-4536-beec-c866798e42a5n@googlegroups.com>
<EqidneU2tr8BPaL8nZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f494ca1a-755b-4d24-a353-4931a28bde42n@googlegroups.com>
<xa6dne6hrt9sut38nZ2dnUU7-e_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3f1419e2-b294-462f-93e7-e9a87a68734en@googlegroups.com>
<zOidnefHCMM-Pt38nZ2dnUU7-V_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<cfcf6e91-8c92-4a63-bb9e-52cf38548402n@googlegroups.com>
<M5mdnU43r-c8XN38nZ2dnUU7-QnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<407cf168-4efa-4248-883f-9173e76e1de0n@googlegroups.com>
From: jharsh...@pacbell.net (John Harshman)
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 16:18:08 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <407cf168-4efa-4248-883f-9173e76e1de0n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <CsOdnSfPRoUssNz8nZ2dnUU7-Q_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 211
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-zyVl1kg2I6Foefzfvu2oPHnUpLvbSYKAcfqsHPL/DoNeCUeCWCpV42+zGY7HGMse/j+eaSuiWdZv1Bl!Vy7Ybmb3WgkXWNIO+FXCoQAiLc3lfQWgdBXqPnhULjURncVPsFrJKX4S053FvWvibiAnbJP9RIw=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 13521
 by: John Harshman - Tue, 14 Sep 2021 23:18 UTC

On 9/14/21 3:36 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 11:37:11 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/14/21 7:50 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 9:29:13 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 9/14/21 5:40 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 12:41:28 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/13/21 8:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 3:04:02 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/13/21 11:39 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> Back to the specimen. On a thread about a Cambrian invertebrate [IIRC a stem arthropod]
>>>>>>>>> you were disappointed by the lack of a phylogenetic analysis. The following should put you
>>>>>>>>> in hog heaven where this "shark-tooth" is concerned:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Two phylogenetic analyses, each including the new taxon Ulughbegsaurus, were conducted with the
>>>>>>>>> software TNT v. 1.5 [41] (electronic supplementary material, text S1: figures S3 and S4). Our first
>>>>>>>>> analysis was performed using the data matrix proposed by Carrano et al. [42] then modified by
>>>>>>>>> Hendrickx & Mateus [10] where Eoraptor represents the outgroup; the characters are treated as
>>>>>>>>> unordered. Our second analysis was conducted using the matrix originally proposed by Porfiri et al.
>>>>>>>>> [43] then modified by Chokchaloemwong et al. [40] where Ceratosaurus represents the outgroup;
>>>>>>>>> characters 2, 4, 6, 13, 15, 17, 27, 69, 106, 148, 155, 158, 160, 167, 169, 171, 179, 181, 194, 195, 205, 208,
>>>>>>>>> 217, 233, 241, 259, 267, 271 were treated as ordered. A traditional heuristic search was done with 1000
>>>>>>>>> replicates of Wagner trees using random addition sequences, followed by the tree bisection and
>>>>>>>>> reconnection branch swapping that holds 10 trees per replicate. Consistency index and retention index
>>>>>>>>> were calculated with PAUP 4.0a [44]."
>>>>>>>>> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.210923 [Section 4, paragraph 1]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What does "were treated as ordered" mean?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A multistate character can be either ordered or unordered. If unordered,
>>>>>>>> going from one state to any other takes one step. If ordered, going from
>>>>>>>> state 1 to state 3 requires two steps, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ah, like state 1 feathers (dinofuzz, optimistically called protofeathers), state 2 feathers,
>>>>>>> state 3 feathers [barbs but no barbules, as in kiwis], state 4 feathers, and state 5 asymmetric flight remiges?
>>>>>
>>>>>> That depends on how you choose to code them. What you have there is a
>>>>>> multi-state character, but you have provided no information on whether
>>>>>> it's to be considered ordered or unordered in analysis.
>>>>>
>>>>> What, don't you remember Prum's hypothetical stages in the evolution of feathers?
>>>>> You seemed to be quite a fan of his about half a dozen years ago.
>>>
>>>> Again, it all depends on how you choose to code it. Prum's (and Brush's)
>>>> stages could be considered as an ordered or unordered character.
>>>
>>> It looks like a no-brainer: count the steps, like you said. It's plain to see in which direction
>>> the characters changed.
>
>> Yes, you could definitely code that as an ordered character. There are
>> potential complications that I won't go into.
>
>>>>>>> But you don't include any of these in your phylogenetic analyses, despite a "consensus" that the majority of
>>>>>>> coelurosaurs had at least state 1, eh?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. The consensus is based on the phylogenetic distribution of known
>>>>>> feathers and optimization on a tree constructed from other data. The
>>>>>> sparse data for feathers just don't contribute much to supporting a tree
>>>>>> even if you include them.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you think that, unlike the case of mammalian hair, loss of feathers in non-avian dinosaurs
>>>>> was a great rarity?
>>>
>>>> No. Where are you getting all these notions?
>>>
>>> Isn't it obvious? absence of feathers in fossil after fossil of the same species
>>> could mean actual loss of feathers.
>
>
>> How would you distinguish loss of feathers from non-preservation?
>
> It's not a certainty, but a hypothesis. As more and more good fossils
> accumulate, the hypothesis is supported. You know, ye olde "scientific method".

I don't think that works. You have to take taphonomy into account. The
conditions for the preservation of feathers or skin are extremely rare,
and you can't just count up fossils with or without them.

>> Usually we infer loss (when coding characters) only when there is
>> preserved skin. And even there it tends to be a patch here and a patch
>> there, so you don't know if there were feathers on some other part of
>> the body.
>
> So you seem to want certainty here, but not in telling whether X is a sister group of Y.

No. I'm saying that absence of evidence (of feathers) is not evidence of
absence.

> For example, there was a revolutionary pair of papers which upset the {theropod, sauropod, ornithischian}
> sister group relationship.
>
> Baron et al. 2017, "A new hypothesis of dinosaur relationships and early dinosaur evolution",
> https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-new-hypothesis-of-dinosaur-relationships-and-Baron-Norman/f03f6a706a883b18303e61b4cca6a56d942bf637
>
> Langer et al. 2017, "Untangling the dinosaur family tree":
> https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Untangling-the-dinosaur-family-tree-Langer-Ezcurra/8c8ff01b0526f76d1a98c88c01d1978c9de75614
>
> A couple of years ago, you said that these papers had been superseded and we are
> back to the traditional division. But I don't recall what evidence you provided.
> Can you cite a paper or two that put this Ornithoscelida hypothesis to rest, in your opinion?

I'm not sure it's put to rest. It's still a matter of contention,
though. Several dinosaur paleontologists criticized the original paper,
if I recall. In fact, you will note that the second paper you reference
finds the traditional topology, not the Ornithoscelida topology.

> Temporarily, at least. I expect you to think that a stake has been driven through
> its heart, but I would like to see the opinion of some well known authority.

I would hope that data analysis would be a better guide than authority.

>>> That's why I think it is a good idea to include feathers
>>> [in the broad sense that seems to be the consensus these days]
>>> in a phylogenetic analysis in which the taxa have enough preserved
>>> of the places where one might expect feathers to have been attached in real life.
>>
>>> Really, what's the harm in doing that?
>
>> No harm if you code most taxa as missing data. Just no benefit either.
>
> Except that you might discover that there is no correlation between having
> hairlike growths optimistically called "protofeathers" and having feathers
> with barbs and barbules. Then the whole "feathered dinosaur" hypothesis could
> be split in two: dinofuzz and feathers.

What exactly do you mean by that? There could only be a correlation if
you scored them as separate characters. But why would you expect a given
fossil to have both, if one evolved from the other? I'm not sure you
have thought this through.

> [Trivia: General Winfield Scott, Mexican War hero, was called "Old Fuss and Feathers."]
>
>
>>>>>>>>> The section continued with:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "The first phylogenetic analysis produced 6320 most parsimonious treeswith a strict consensus tree placing
>>>>>>>>> Ulughbegsaurus within a poorly resolved Neovenatoridae (Aerosteon, Australovenator, Chilantaisaurus,
>>>>>>>>> Fukuiraptor, Megaraptor and Neovenator), a clade within Carcharodontosauria (figure 3a).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How can there be so many "most parsimonous trees"? Is there a quantitative measure of parsimony,
>>>>>>>>> or is it just an order ranking, with 6320 maximal trees, none of which is comparable to any of the others?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The quantitative measure is the number of steps (changes) required to
>>>>>>>> fit the data to the tree. Not sure what you mean by "maximal" here;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not all orderings are linear. Take the proper subsets of the set {1, 2, 3} with the order "is a subset of";
>>>>>>> by proper subset I mean a subset missing at least one element. The maximal proper subsets
>>>>>>> are {1,2}, {2,3} and {1,3}. They are maximal, because there is no proper subset that contains any
>>>>>>> of them without being that subset itself.
>>>>>
>>>>>> This has nothing at all to do with the meaning of "most parsimonious
>>>>>> trees". Nor does "maximal".
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for clearing up that much. But it seems that biologists sometimes work with an
>>>>> impoverished model where you try too hard to shoehorn things into linear order,
>>>>> and even to assign numbers to them. [Mohs scale of hardness was a lot like that,
>>>>> until some physics-savvy person fixed it up.]
>>>>>
>>>>> On the other hand, in a phylogenetic tree, EVERY SPECIES is incomparable to every
>>>>> other species. ALL species are at maximal points, at the tips of all the branches.
>>>>> I could kick myself for not thinking of this example right off the bat.
>>>
>>>> I really have no idea what you're talking about here,
>>>
>>> Explaining the difference between "maximal" and "maximum = above everything else"
>
>> Still have no idea what you mean.
>
> Oh, really? you are still unable to comprehend the difference, are you?


Click here to read the complete article
Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan

<ipmdnXNCgP9Gr9z8nZ2dnUU7-T-dnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3426&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3426

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 18:40:11 -0500
Subject: Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
References: <b61ad741-c82a-4a7b-a276-59b71946f6dbn@googlegroups.com>
<2960ba6e-ec72-4279-9674-446d87887edfn@googlegroups.com>
<93e86fc0-15ed-474e-8661-afc5c06a3520n@googlegroups.com>
<vqWdnbYnmN-0-aL8nZ2dnUU7-a_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<15ad4d40-06ef-4536-beec-c866798e42a5n@googlegroups.com>
<EqidneU2tr8BPaL8nZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f494ca1a-755b-4d24-a353-4931a28bde42n@googlegroups.com>
<xa6dne6hrt9sut38nZ2dnUU7-e_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e2973aae-8dda-4ebc-b788-3b9b661e251dn@googlegroups.com>
From: jharsh...@pacbell.net (John Harshman)
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 16:40:10 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <e2973aae-8dda-4ebc-b788-3b9b661e251dn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <ipmdnXNCgP9Gr9z8nZ2dnUU7-T-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 49
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-WXur1oAEMx1q5ge57walpN0QT+LpEMConf6B6GMP3wpVxSKzqpzSFBIQcwpk8FL3oYuivbzxTCJkfsn!yGx7e36Rz99FhQgVm4QuT5PAsaCfrX1u2rK+RHcedxvOSPTgkwc71oJCQd7GylRmtuJCcou4HhI=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4323
 by: John Harshman - Tue, 14 Sep 2021 23:40 UTC

On 9/14/21 2:23 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> Just to clear up a "don't see it here" from you.
>
> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 12:41:28 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/13/21 8:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 3:04:02 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 9/13/21 11:39 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>>>> I see you have located the actual paper,
>>>> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.210923#d1e809
>>>
>>> I see you didn't notice that I included it in the OP. Did I make it too boring for you to read
>>> it without getting sleepy?
>
>> Don't see it here. Did someone snip it?
>
> Nobody snipped it. It's further down, at the bottom of what you see below.
>
>>>>> Back to the specimen. On a thread about a Cambrian invertebrate [IIRC a stem arthropod]
>>>>> you were disappointed by the lack of a phylogenetic analysis. The following should put you
>>>>> in hog heaven where this "shark-tooth" is concerned:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Two phylogenetic analyses, each including the new taxon Ulughbegsaurus, were conducted with the
>>>>> software TNT v. 1.5 [41] (electronic supplementary material, text S1: figures S3 and S4). Our first
>>>>> analysis was performed using the data matrix proposed by Carrano et al. [42] then modified by
>>>>> Hendrickx & Mateus [10] where Eoraptor represents the outgroup; the characters are treated as
>>>>> unordered. Our second analysis was conducted using the matrix originally proposed by Porfiri et al.
>>>>> [43] then modified by Chokchaloemwong et al. [40] where Ceratosaurus represents the outgroup;
>>>>> characters 2, 4, 6, 13, 15, 17, 27, 69, 106, 148, 155, 158, 160, 167, 169, 171, 179, 181, 194, 195, 205, 208,
>>>>> 217, 233, 241, 259, 267, 271 were treated as ordered. A traditional heuristic search was done with 1000
>>>>> replicates of Wagner trees using random addition sequences, followed by the tree bisection and
>>>>> reconnection branch swapping that holds 10 trees per replicate. Consistency index and retention index
>>>>> were calculated with PAUP 4.0a [44]."
>>>>> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.210923 [Section 4, paragraph 1]
>
> See that last line?

Yes, though that isn't what I was talking about, and it's not what was
in the OP, though I do see that you did include a link in the OP. That
part had indeed been snipped. You added that link later, after the snip
had happened.

> I'll be reposting something further down in Section 4, that is the source of an even longer
> failure to communicate. Later today.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan

<722ef963-7a80-44b4-a909-5bab0ccdbf9bn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3427&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3427

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5acb:: with SMTP id d11mr7463014qtd.287.1631665057328;
Tue, 14 Sep 2021 17:17:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:102f:: with SMTP id x15mr2410513ybt.130.1631665057065;
Tue, 14 Sep 2021 17:17:37 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 17:17:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CsOdnSfPRoUssNz8nZ2dnUU7-Q_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:1700:48c9:290:f10b:57d7:9a28:b9db;
posting-account=MmaSmwoAAABAWoWNw3B4MhJqLSp3_9Ze
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:1700:48c9:290:f10b:57d7:9a28:b9db
References: <b61ad741-c82a-4a7b-a276-59b71946f6dbn@googlegroups.com>
<2960ba6e-ec72-4279-9674-446d87887edfn@googlegroups.com> <93e86fc0-15ed-474e-8661-afc5c06a3520n@googlegroups.com>
<vqWdnbYnmN-0-aL8nZ2dnUU7-a_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <15ad4d40-06ef-4536-beec-c866798e42a5n@googlegroups.com>
<EqidneU2tr8BPaL8nZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <f494ca1a-755b-4d24-a353-4931a28bde42n@googlegroups.com>
<xa6dne6hrt9sut38nZ2dnUU7-e_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <3f1419e2-b294-462f-93e7-e9a87a68734en@googlegroups.com>
<zOidnefHCMM-Pt38nZ2dnUU7-V_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <cfcf6e91-8c92-4a63-bb9e-52cf38548402n@googlegroups.com>
<M5mdnU43r-c8XN38nZ2dnUU7-QnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <407cf168-4efa-4248-883f-9173e76e1de0n@googlegroups.com>
<CsOdnSfPRoUssNz8nZ2dnUU7-Q_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <722ef963-7a80-44b4-a909-5bab0ccdbf9bn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan
From: peter2ny...@gmail.com (Peter Nyikos)
Injection-Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 00:17:37 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 139
 by: Peter Nyikos - Wed, 15 Sep 2021 00:17 UTC

On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 7:18:15 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/14/21 3:36 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 11:37:11 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 9/14/21 7:50 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 9:29:13 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 9/14/21 5:40 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 12:41:28 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 9/13/21 8:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 3:04:02 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 9/13/21 11:39 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>>>> Back to the specimen. On a thread about a Cambrian invertebrate [IIRC a stem arthropod]
> >>>>>>>>> you were disappointed by the lack of a phylogenetic analysis. The following should put you
> >>>>>>>>> in hog heaven where this "shark-tooth" is concerned:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "Two phylogenetic analyses, each including the new taxon Ulughbegsaurus, were conducted with the
> >>>>>>>>> software TNT v. 1.5 [41] (electronic supplementary material, text S1: figures S3 and S4). Our first
> >>>>>>>>> analysis was performed using the data matrix proposed by Carrano et al. [42] then modified by
> >>>>>>>>> Hendrickx & Mateus [10] where Eoraptor represents the outgroup; the characters are treated as
> >>>>>>>>> unordered. Our second analysis was conducted using the matrix originally proposed by Porfiri et al.
> >>>>>>>>> [43] then modified by Chokchaloemwong et al. [40] where Ceratosaurus represents the outgroup;
> >>>>>>>>> characters 2, 4, 6, 13, 15, 17, 27, 69, 106, 148, 155, 158, 160, 167, 169, 171, 179, 181, 194, 195, 205, 208,
> >>>>>>>>> 217, 233, 241, 259, 267, 271 were treated as ordered. A traditional heuristic search was done with 1000
> >>>>>>>>> replicates of Wagner trees using random addition sequences, followed by the tree bisection and
> >>>>>>>>> reconnection branch swapping that holds 10 trees per replicate. Consistency index and retention index
> >>>>>>>>> were calculated with PAUP 4.0a [44]."
> >>>>>>>>> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.210923 [Section 4, paragraph 1]
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> What does "were treated as ordered" mean?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> A multistate character can be either ordered or unordered. If unordered,
> >>>>>>>> going from one state to any other takes one step. If ordered, going from
> >>>>>>>> state 1 to state 3 requires two steps, etc.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ah, like state 1 feathers (dinofuzz, optimistically called protofeathers), state 2 feathers,
> >>>>>>> state 3 feathers [barbs but no barbules, as in kiwis], state 4 feathers, and state 5 asymmetric flight remiges?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> That depends on how you choose to code them. What you have there is a
> >>>>>> multi-state character, but you have provided no information on whether
> >>>>>> it's to be considered ordered or unordered in analysis.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What, don't you remember Prum's hypothetical stages in the evolution of feathers?
> >>>>> You seemed to be quite a fan of his about half a dozen years ago.
> >>>
> >>>> Again, it all depends on how you choose to code it. Prum's (and Brush's)
> >>>> stages could be considered as an ordered or unordered character.
> >>>
> >>> It looks like a no-brainer: count the steps, like you said. It's plain to see in which direction
> >>> the characters changed.
> >
> >> Yes, you could definitely code that as an ordered character. There are
> >> potential complications that I won't go into.
> >
> >>>>>>> But you don't include any of these in your phylogenetic analyses, despite a "consensus" that the majority of
> >>>>>>> coelurosaurs had at least state 1, eh?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes. The consensus is based on the phylogenetic distribution of known
> >>>>>> feathers and optimization on a tree constructed from other data. The
> >>>>>> sparse data for feathers just don't contribute much to supporting a tree
> >>>>>> even if you include them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So you think that, unlike the case of mammalian hair, loss of feathers in non-avian dinosaurs
> >>>>> was a great rarity?
> >>>
> >>>> No. Where are you getting all these notions?
> >>>
> >>> Isn't it obvious? absence of feathers in fossil after fossil of the same species
> >>> could mean actual loss of feathers.
> >
> >
> >> How would you distinguish loss of feathers from non-preservation?
> >
> > It's not a certainty, but a hypothesis. As more and more good fossils
> > accumulate, the hypothesis is supported. You know, ye olde "scientific method".

> I don't think that works. You have to take taphonomy into account. The
> conditions for the preservation of feathers or skin are extremely rare,
> and you can't just count up fossils with or without them.

I didn't suggest anything so simplistic as your last line.

> >> Usually we infer loss (when coding characters) only when there is
> >> preserved skin. And even there it tends to be a patch here and a patch
> >> there, so you don't know if there were feathers on some other part of
> >> the body.
> >
> > So you seem to want certainty here, but not in telling whether X is a sister group of Y.

> No. I'm saying that absence of evidence (of feathers) is not evidence of
> absence.

General truisms like this don't add to the discussion.

> > For example, there was a revolutionary pair of papers which upset the {theropod, sauropod, ornithischian}
> > sister group relationship.
> >
> > Baron et al. 2017, "A new hypothesis of dinosaur relationships and early dinosaur evolution",
> > https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-new-hypothesis-of-dinosaur-relationships-and-Baron-Norman/f03f6a706a883b18303e61b4cca6a56d942bf637
> >
> > Langer et al. 2017, "Untangling the dinosaur family tree":
> > https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Untangling-the-dinosaur-family-tree-Langer-Ezcurra/8c8ff01b0526f76d1a98c88c01d1978c9de75614
> >
> > A couple of years ago, you said that these papers had been superseded and we are
> > back to the traditional division. But I don't recall what evidence you provided.
> > Can you cite a paper or two that put this Ornithoscelida hypothesis to rest, in your opinion?

> I'm not sure it's put to rest. It's still a matter of contention,
> though. Several dinosaur paleontologists criticized the original paper,
> if I recall. In fact, you will note that the second paper you reference
> finds the traditional topology, not the Ornithoscelida topology.

But weakly supported, and leaving considerable doubt. If you know
of any progress in the last four years, why don't you provide it?

> > Temporarily, at least. I expect you to think that a stake has been driven through
> > its heart, but I would like to see the opinion of some well known authority.

> I would hope that data analysis would be a better guide than authority.

I'm glad you are not living up to my pessimistic expectations. So, no authority needed.

In fact, you are proving my point for me: some of the most basic
sister group relationships are still up for grabs. As for your
excuses for not scoring presence of feathers, I have never seen you cite
a paper that gives any excuses at all. Can you find one now?

Remainder deleted, to be replied to tomorrow or the day after.

By the way, something you posted later made me think more carefully
about what I wanted to say about that disagreement about Megaraptora
being carnosaurs or coelurosaurs. So I've decided to postpone that for another day too.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of So. Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos


Click here to read the complete article
Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan

<5fednQLUppyF1Nz8nZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3428&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3428

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 20:15:04 -0500
Subject: Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
References: <b61ad741-c82a-4a7b-a276-59b71946f6dbn@googlegroups.com>
<2960ba6e-ec72-4279-9674-446d87887edfn@googlegroups.com>
<93e86fc0-15ed-474e-8661-afc5c06a3520n@googlegroups.com>
<vqWdnbYnmN-0-aL8nZ2dnUU7-a_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<15ad4d40-06ef-4536-beec-c866798e42a5n@googlegroups.com>
<EqidneU2tr8BPaL8nZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f494ca1a-755b-4d24-a353-4931a28bde42n@googlegroups.com>
<xa6dne6hrt9sut38nZ2dnUU7-e_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3f1419e2-b294-462f-93e7-e9a87a68734en@googlegroups.com>
<zOidnefHCMM-Pt38nZ2dnUU7-V_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<cfcf6e91-8c92-4a63-bb9e-52cf38548402n@googlegroups.com>
<M5mdnU43r-c8XN38nZ2dnUU7-QnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<407cf168-4efa-4248-883f-9173e76e1de0n@googlegroups.com>
<CsOdnSfPRoUssNz8nZ2dnUU7-Q_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<722ef963-7a80-44b4-a909-5bab0ccdbf9bn@googlegroups.com>
From: jharsh...@pacbell.net (John Harshman)
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 18:15:03 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <722ef963-7a80-44b4-a909-5bab0ccdbf9bn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <5fednQLUppyF1Nz8nZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 146
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-BHMIq0B/3Otjj/SjeH49K+7KzFWiB1G2ogbx+kD6q0Q+9U0Dl/pKoixrGjjSzQh9hjkpbh//QyFNVOZ!HlfMUmKtc889nPAzQTuzrmGclIdKUQIVR+cWEttnjTAUd+inxd0N8rxt+RqbxysaOtwGJiYyFMY=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 10168
 by: John Harshman - Wed, 15 Sep 2021 01:15 UTC

On 9/14/21 5:17 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 7:18:15 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/14/21 3:36 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 11:37:11 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 9/14/21 7:50 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 9:29:13 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/14/21 5:40 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 12:41:28 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/13/21 8:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 3:04:02 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/13/21 11:39 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Back to the specimen. On a thread about a Cambrian invertebrate [IIRC a stem arthropod]
>>>>>>>>>>> you were disappointed by the lack of a phylogenetic analysis. The following should put you
>>>>>>>>>>> in hog heaven where this "shark-tooth" is concerned:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Two phylogenetic analyses, each including the new taxon Ulughbegsaurus, were conducted with the
>>>>>>>>>>> software TNT v. 1.5 [41] (electronic supplementary material, text S1: figures S3 and S4). Our first
>>>>>>>>>>> analysis was performed using the data matrix proposed by Carrano et al. [42] then modified by
>>>>>>>>>>> Hendrickx & Mateus [10] where Eoraptor represents the outgroup; the characters are treated as
>>>>>>>>>>> unordered. Our second analysis was conducted using the matrix originally proposed by Porfiri et al.
>>>>>>>>>>> [43] then modified by Chokchaloemwong et al. [40] where Ceratosaurus represents the outgroup;
>>>>>>>>>>> characters 2, 4, 6, 13, 15, 17, 27, 69, 106, 148, 155, 158, 160, 167, 169, 171, 179, 181, 194, 195, 205, 208,
>>>>>>>>>>> 217, 233, 241, 259, 267, 271 were treated as ordered. A traditional heuristic search was done with 1000
>>>>>>>>>>> replicates of Wagner trees using random addition sequences, followed by the tree bisection and
>>>>>>>>>>> reconnection branch swapping that holds 10 trees per replicate. Consistency index and retention index
>>>>>>>>>>> were calculated with PAUP 4.0a [44]."
>>>>>>>>>>> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.210923 [Section 4, paragraph 1]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What does "were treated as ordered" mean?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A multistate character can be either ordered or unordered. If unordered,
>>>>>>>>>> going from one state to any other takes one step. If ordered, going from
>>>>>>>>>> state 1 to state 3 requires two steps, etc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ah, like state 1 feathers (dinofuzz, optimistically called protofeathers), state 2 feathers,
>>>>>>>>> state 3 feathers [barbs but no barbules, as in kiwis], state 4 feathers, and state 5 asymmetric flight remiges?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That depends on how you choose to code them. What you have there is a
>>>>>>>> multi-state character, but you have provided no information on whether
>>>>>>>> it's to be considered ordered or unordered in analysis.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What, don't you remember Prum's hypothetical stages in the evolution of feathers?
>>>>>>> You seemed to be quite a fan of his about half a dozen years ago.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, it all depends on how you choose to code it. Prum's (and Brush's)
>>>>>> stages could be considered as an ordered or unordered character.
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks like a no-brainer: count the steps, like you said. It's plain to see in which direction
>>>>> the characters changed.
>>>
>>>> Yes, you could definitely code that as an ordered character. There are
>>>> potential complications that I won't go into.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> But you don't include any of these in your phylogenetic analyses, despite a "consensus" that the majority of
>>>>>>>>> coelurosaurs had at least state 1, eh?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes. The consensus is based on the phylogenetic distribution of known
>>>>>>>> feathers and optimization on a tree constructed from other data. The
>>>>>>>> sparse data for feathers just don't contribute much to supporting a tree
>>>>>>>> even if you include them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you think that, unlike the case of mammalian hair, loss of feathers in non-avian dinosaurs
>>>>>>> was a great rarity?
>>>>>
>>>>>> No. Where are you getting all these notions?
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't it obvious? absence of feathers in fossil after fossil of the same species
>>>>> could mean actual loss of feathers.
>>>
>>>
>>>> How would you distinguish loss of feathers from non-preservation?
>>>
>>> It's not a certainty, but a hypothesis. As more and more good fossils
>>> accumulate, the hypothesis is supported. You know, ye olde "scientific method".
>
>> I don't think that works. You have to take taphonomy into account. The
>> conditions for the preservation of feathers or skin are extremely rare,
>> and you can't just count up fossils with or without them.
>
> I didn't suggest anything so simplistic as your last line.

Then what were you suggesting?

>>>> Usually we infer loss (when coding characters) only when there is
>>>> preserved skin. And even there it tends to be a patch here and a patch
>>>> there, so you don't know if there were feathers on some other part of
>>>> the body.
>>>
>>> So you seem to want certainty here, but not in telling whether X is a sister group of Y.
>
>> No. I'm saying that absence of evidence (of feathers) is not evidence of
>> absence.
>
> General truisms like this don't add to the discussion.

They do if you are violating that truism, which it seems you are.

>>> For example, there was a revolutionary pair of papers which upset the {theropod, sauropod, ornithischian}
>>> sister group relationship.
>>>
>>> Baron et al. 2017, "A new hypothesis of dinosaur relationships and early dinosaur evolution",
>>> https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-new-hypothesis-of-dinosaur-relationships-and-Baron-Norman/f03f6a706a883b18303e61b4cca6a56d942bf637
>>>
>>> Langer et al. 2017, "Untangling the dinosaur family tree":
>>> https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Untangling-the-dinosaur-family-tree-Langer-Ezcurra/8c8ff01b0526f76d1a98c88c01d1978c9de75614
>>>
>>> A couple of years ago, you said that these papers had been superseded and we are
>>> back to the traditional division. But I don't recall what evidence you provided.
>>> Can you cite a paper or two that put this Ornithoscelida hypothesis to rest, in your opinion?
>
>> I'm not sure it's put to rest. It's still a matter of contention,
>> though. Several dinosaur paleontologists criticized the original paper,
>> if I recall. In fact, you will note that the second paper you reference
>> finds the traditional topology, not the Ornithoscelida topology.
>
> But weakly supported, and leaving considerable doubt. If you know
> of any progress in the last four years, why don't you provide it?

I don't, though I do recall reading a recent paper that supported
Ornithoscelida. Can't remember where.

>>> Temporarily, at least. I expect you to think that a stake has been driven through
>>> its heart, but I would like to see the opinion of some well known authority.
>
>> I would hope that data analysis would be a better guide than authority.
>
> I'm glad you are not living up to my pessimistic expectations. So, no authority needed.
>
> In fact, you are proving my point for me: some of the most basic
> sister group relationships are still up for grabs. As for your
> excuses for not scoring presence of feathers, I have never seen you cite
> a paper that gives any excuses at all. Can you find one now?


Click here to read the complete article
Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan

<653d3631-4f95-424d-9bba-6b5397ff1827n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3431&group=sci.bio.paleontology#3431

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:405b:: with SMTP id j27mr1507689qtl.101.1631733399508;
Wed, 15 Sep 2021 12:16:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:1243:: with SMTP id t3mr2077777ybu.135.1631733399340;
Wed, 15 Sep 2021 12:16:39 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 12:16:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <shmbkc$tdh$1@solani.org>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=129.252.33.116; posting-account=MmaSmwoAAABAWoWNw3B4MhJqLSp3_9Ze
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.252.33.116
References: <b61ad741-c82a-4a7b-a276-59b71946f6dbn@googlegroups.com> <shmbkc$tdh$1@solani.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <653d3631-4f95-424d-9bba-6b5397ff1827n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: A new shark-toothed theropod from Uzbekistan
From: peter2ny...@gmail.com (Peter Nyikos)
Injection-Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 19:16:39 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 210
 by: Peter Nyikos - Wed, 15 Sep 2021 19:16 UTC

On Sunday, September 12, 2021 at 10:05:02 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 9/10/2021 9:57 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > Carcharodontosauria (shark-toothed saurians) were the last of the
> > allosaurids, found in Laurasia up to the end of the Turonian
> > (early Late Cretaceous) but surviving in Gondwana to the end of the Cretaceous.
> > In a role reversal from what I've been accustomed to, the largest of these allosaurids
> > were considerably larger than the largest tyrannosauroids of the time.
> >
> > The "new" find is actually a rediscovery:
> >
> > "The chunk of jawbone was found in Uzbekistan's Kyzylkum Desert in the 1980s, and researchers rediscovered it in 2019 in an Uzbekistan museum collection."
> > https://www.microsoftnewskids.com/en-us/kids/animals/gigantic-shark-toothed-dinosaur-discovered-in-uzbekistan/ar-AAOhazl?ocid=entnewsntp
> >
> > The chunk is a partial maxilla, but from comparison with other
> > carcharodontosaurs, the following is hypothesized [*ibid*]:
> >
> > "The 26-foot-long (8 meters) beast weighed 2,200 pounds (1,000 kilograms), making it longer than an African elephant and heavier than a bison. Researchers named it *Ulughbegsaurus* *uzbekistanensis*, after Ulugh Beg, a 15th-century astronomer, mathematician and sultan from what is now Uzbekistan..

> The reason dinosaurs were larger and yet lighter than even mammals today
> is because of their respiratory systems.

I'd like to see anyone support that claim with a citation to a peer reviewed research article.

> Birds inherited their famous
> respiratory systems from somewhere, you know.

Yes, but do you have any evidence besides an unreferenced claim
at the beginning of a Wikipedia article saying that coelurosaurs
had hollow bones?

Coelurosaurs are a clade that is included in a larger clade with carnosaurs,
and this clade in turn was just a part of Theropoda. What makes you think
the giant sauropods, or the ornithiscians had hollow bones?

> Pound for pound in a
> confrontation between a dinosaur and a mammal of equivalent size and
> weight the dinosaur would hands down.

This may be true of cassowaries today, but I wonder how a cassowary would fare
in a confrontation with a leopard, or some other carnivore of no greater size than itself.

Over in Africa, there must have been many confrontations of ostriches with
mammals of various kinds, and ostriches can hold their own with their famous kicks,
but whether they can "win hands down" is a different question.

[I often use a simile mixing fiction and fact in talk.origins, when speaking
of people with their heads buried in the sand while kicking furiously
from time to time at those they have killfiled.]

> I know you have an irrational
> fondness for Fedducia's bullshit,

You "know" all kinds of falsehoods, and this is one of them.

However, I am sure Harshman will be delighted to hear you denigrate Feduccia
like that. I have him to thank for my knowing about Feduccia in the first place.
The occasion was a thread where Harshman panned a paper of Feduccia
without even bothering to show that what Feduccia was proposing was wrong.

IIRC John's main ire was focused on the journal *Auk* for daring to publish anything
by Feduccia. By the time I found that thread, it was about 50 posts deep,
because he had quite a number of adoring fans, most of whom said nothing
scientific that would have even addressed the points Feduccia was making.
IOW, they acted just like you are acting now.

The only critic of this mutual backslapping was Ray Martinez,
but he had no reason to be fond of Feduccia, but he had his own creationist
bilge to propound.

When I came on the scene, I wanted to know what the big fuss was all
about, and Harshman's replies were too weak to be decisive,
and that is the way things have been ever since.

> but even you must admit that the
> scientific consensus that birds are dinosaurs is and was correct.

It certainly was NOT when Harshman's role model Henry Gee, then editor
of _Nature_, pontificated, "Birds are dinosaurs. The debate is over."

He did this on the basis of two new finds in China, one of which was *Sinosauropteryx*,
a fligtless coelurosaur covered with hairlike fibers on much of its body; and
*Caudipteryx*, a creature with true feathers who many to this day
[including quite a number who do believe birds to be dinosaurs]
believe to be a secondarily flightless bird. There is at least one fairly
thorough cladistic analysis that has it in a clade whose sister taxon is *Confuciusornis*,
with *Archaeopteryx* several clades removed.

In short, neither of the two creatures that made Henry Gee so sure
were of much use as evidence for birds being dinosaurs.

But biologists are slaves of external funding, and the implicit message Henry's editorial
came out loud and clear. Any paper that dared to dispute the hypothesis that birds are dinosaurs
would be held to astronomically high standards by _Nature_,
while any paper that supported the hypothesis would be welcomed with open arms,
at least as far as being reviewed by people who firmly believed in the hypothesis.
These reviewers would naturally get a very good first impression of the submission.

Fast forward to the present, and Harshman has always been long on rhetoric and
short on hard data and reasoning. Just yesterday his "evidence" for birds being
dinosaurs was a close paraphrase of Henry Gee's *ipse dixit*.

> > "What caught scientists by surprise was that the dinosaur was much larger — twice the length and more than five times heavier — than its ecosystem's previously known apex predator: a tyrannosaur, the researchers found."
> >
> > That should probably be "tyrannosauroid," but as you can see from the url,
> > this article was chosen [from "Live Science"] with kids in mind as a hefty part
> > of the audience; there is a suitable picture at the top of the article to go with that.
> >
> > The research paper on which it is based is free access:
> > https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.210923
> >
> > I relied on it for my opening paragraph, but this being late Friday here,
> > I am quoting from the popularization from here on.
> >
> > "The two dinosaur groups were fairly similar, but carcharodontosaurs were generally more slender and lightly-built than the heavyset tyrannosaurs, said study co-researcher Darla Zelenitsky, an associate professor of paleobiology at the University of Calgary. Even so, carcharodontosaurs were usually larger than tyrannosaur dinosaurs, reaching weights greater than 13,200 pounds (6,000 kg)."

You really aren't interested in details like this, Oxyaena, unless you get to report on them, are you?

> > Here too, "tyrannosauroid" is more precise, while "tyrannosaurid" is
> > the most precise term in the next sentence:
> >
> > "Then, around 90 million to 80 million years ago, the carcharodontosaurs disappeared and the tyrannosaurs grew in size, taking over as apex predators in Asia and North America."
> >
> > "The new finding is the first carcharodontosaur dinosaur discovered in Central Asia, the researchers noted. Paleontologists already knew that the tyrannosaur *Timurlengia* lived at the same time and place, but at 13 feet (4 m) in length and about 375 pounds (170 kg) in weight, *Timurlengia* was several times smaller than *U. uzbekistanensis*, suggesting that *U. uzbekistanensis* was the apex predator in that ecosystem, gobbling up horned dinosaurs, long-necked sauropods and ostrich-like dinosaurs in the neighborhood, the team said."

You may be younger than me, Oxyaena, but you don't seem to be young at heart the way I am.
You thought that the following was criticism, didn't you?

> >
> > Methinks that the part from "gobbling up..." on was inspired by
> > "The Land Before Time" cartoon series. My daughters each saw
> > the first two at a tender age, and were very fond of them.

Well, it wasn't. It always makes me glad to see children waxing enthusiastic about
prehistoric animals. Sadly, I didn't see much sign of such children when I was growing up.
I still remember when I was avidly reading _The First Mammals_ by Scheele, in the library
only a year or two after it was published, and a classmate of mine of above average
intelligence berated me for reading such a book, and recommended that I switch to reading
books on Greek mythology instead.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

Pages:12
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor