Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login
Speculative Tyrannosauroidea Phylogeny by PaleoAustin Speculative Tyrannosauroidea Phylogeny by PaleoAustin
Just a little something I've been messing with as a result of my curiosity. This is in no way accurate or to be treated scientifically. Just something to speculate on. Based on various phylogeny research I've come across and some inference of mine. I would like to continue to update this so if anyone has any ideas or thoughts, please let me know. As I mentioned I do not take credit for everything here, all the actual research belongs to their respective owners.

Made with TreeGraph 2.



EDIT 4/17/17
Thanks to everyone for the wonderful feedback. I've updated the tree accordingly to this. I welcome all comments, thoughts, suggestions, etc. I would love to resolve any current polytomies, as well as add or remove species as need be.

Major Changes:

Reassignment of Yutyrannus huali to Proceratosauridae.
Addition of Megaraptora.
Inclusion of Dryptosauridae within Albertosaurinae
Creation of Daspletosaurini.
Addition of Daspletosaurus horneri.
Resolution of Tyrannosaurus polytomy.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconveterufreak:
Veterufreak Featured By Owner Apr 17, 2017  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Nice
But... where my boi Bahariasaurus at
Reply
:iconpaleoaustin:
PaleoAustin Featured By Owner Apr 17, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
He with Gualicho and Delta over in the Neovenatoridae inside Carcharodontosauria.
Reply
:iconveterufreak:
Veterufreak Featured By Owner Apr 17, 2017  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Ew, that taxonomy

Deltadromeus = elaphrosaurine (an herbivore most likely)
Bahariasaurus = megaraptoran
I know where you got that classification of them from but it is an evil beyond belief.
Reply
:iconpaleoaustin:
PaleoAustin Featured By Owner Apr 17, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
My bad. I feel sorry for poor Baharia now. I'll bring him back into the Megaraptor gang. Do you think I should just leave Gualicho with Neovenator and Chilantai?
Reply
:iconveterufreak:
Veterufreak Featured By Owner Apr 17, 2017  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Yeah that's fine probably. Also to be honest taxonomy can be pretty subjective, so we can't be sure exactly what's correct or not. It's possible that all the Neovenatorids are actually just basal carhcarodontosaurids too, instead of a whole separate group. But in that case I don't know if Gualicho would be in carcharodontosauridae, just outside it, or just moved to Megaraptora. There's a lot of possibility here, so it's really up to you.
Reply
:iconbricksmashtv:
bricksmashtv Featured By Owner Apr 15, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
lol I appreciate that you follow my Tyrannosaurus species. Very nice tree overall, though I suspect some of it is off. I like this program, I'm definitely gonna use it in the future.
Reply
:iconpaleoaustin:
PaleoAustin Featured By Owner Apr 15, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
I support your thoughts on it, however I still don't know much in terms of these species. Would you mind explaining them to me? I would also love to try to fix the polytomy concerning the Tyrannosaurus species, if you were able to help. Thank you very much. Any elaboration on what you think may be off? That's good to hear, I find the program really easy to use especially being free.
Reply
:iconbricksmashtv:
bricksmashtv Featured By Owner Apr 16, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
In terms of the splitting, I am actually going to work on a manuscript to try & discuss this properly, but for now a good place to start is this post by :iconijreid: (who shares many similar ideas about dinosaurs with myself): dinosaurduty.wordpress.com/201…

On the polytomy, I would expect they would be ordered stratigraphically, with T. hendricksoni the most basal, then T. sacrisoni, then finally T. browni & T. rex proper.

On what I consider off, I would place Yutyrannus within Proceratosauridae. I would also include Coeluridae as the most basal tyrannosaurs & I would include Megaraptora in between the basal taxa (proceratosaurids & a bunch of other basal taxa on one end) & Timurlengia & several advanced tyrannosaurs (including Tyrannosauridae proper) on the other end (a grouping I like to call "Neotyrannosauria"). I consider the grouping "Dryptosaurinae" here to be members of the subfamily Albertosaurinae, & I also consider alioramines to belong to Tyrannosaurinae. And of course you mentioned below the changes to the daspletosaurines (D. horneri, D. sp. [Dinosaur Park]). I would also include Bistahieversor in said Daspletosaurinae.
Reply
:iconpaleoaustin:
PaleoAustin Featured By Owner Apr 16, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
I look forward to seeing this manuscript. I will adjust Tyrannosaurus accordingly. I have received other feedback about Yutyrannus in Proceratosauridae and am planning on changing the tree to reflect this. Coeluridae seems more to me like a group of its own, outside of Tyrannosauroidea. I could be mislead on this however. I have heard and read many conflicting opinions concerning the placement of Megaraptora. Any reason why you include it within Tyrannosauroidea and not as an outgroup? I could understand the relation of Dryptosaurs with Albertosaurs, however I have also heard about the affiliation of them with the Alioramines, an affiliation which I have reflected here. If the ties between Dryptosaurs and Albertosaurs are stronger, I would be for the idea of changing this, and thus including the Alioramines within Tyrannosaurinae. Would you consider Bistahieversor as basal to the Daspletosaurinae then? And where would the Daspletosaurinae fall in relation with the other members of Tyrannosauridae?
Reply
:iconbricksmashtv:
bricksmashtv Featured By Owner Apr 17, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
"I have heard and read many conflicting opinions concerning the placement of Megaraptora. Any reason why you include it within Tyrannosauroidea and not as an outgroup?"

Well, mainly because I can xD. Really the skull of Megaraptor just seriously reminds me of Dilong. Megaraptorans are just so god damn confusing...

" however I have also heard about the affiliation of them with the Alioramines"

Could you provide a source for that? I've actually never heard that before. Nevertheless, it'd be much more likely IMO that dryptosaurines & alioramines would be albertosaurines than outside Tyrannosauridae.

"Would you consider Bistahieversor as basal to the Daspletosaurinae then?"

Actually I would consider Bistahieversor a true daspletosaurine, though more basal than Daspletosaurus proper.

"And where would the Daspletosaurinae fall in relation with the other members of Tyrannosauridae?"

I would consider daspletosaurines to be tyrannosaurines (& thus Daspletosaurini) as the most basal tyrannosaurines.
Reply
:iconpaleoaustin:
PaleoAustin Featured By Owner Apr 17, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
Megaraptorans really are confusing. I myself am still undecided as to where they lie, but I am considering adding them to this tree. Would you place the divergence of Megaraptora just after Dilong then, I presume?

www.nature.com/articles/srep20…
You can take a look at the Bayesian analysis here which recovers Dryptosaurus as basal to the Alioramini. Both dryptosaurs and alioramines being albertosaurines is quite an interesting concept. It makes a lot of sense to me.

I will be sure to change the phylogeny to reflect these thoughts. Thanks :D
Reply
:iconbricksmashtv:
bricksmashtv Featured By Owner Apr 17, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
you're welcome!
Reply
:iconjonagold2000:
JonaGold2000 Featured By Owner Apr 15, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
A few tips, questions and remarks:
-Cite the sources you used, if this was a series of papers you found on Google Scholar there should be an option to cite it.
-How did you actually make it? Most who make trees like this, assuming they didn't copy a paper, use a special software that allows them to check out all of their used characters and make the most parsmimonious tree with the given data.
-What does speculative mean in this case?
-You've probably oversplit Tyrannosaurus a fair amount.
Reply
:iconpaleoaustin:
PaleoAustin Featured By Owner Apr 15, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
Thank you all your words.

This is essentially just to plot out my thoughts on the phylogeny (that's where the speculative part comes in). The program I used to make this, TreeGraph, has the capability to insert characters, however, I have not explored this feature much and in this instance the feature was not used. It is compiled mostly by inference, through looking at other trees and by some speculation of my own. The goal with this was not to perform an actual detailed analysis, however I would very much like to do this in the future, but more of just to layout my thoughts, as stated before, and to get input from other individuals. When it comes to Tyrannosaurus I was going off of the various different types identified by bricksmashtv. I am still uncertain as to whether these could represent entire species or whether they are something smaller like subspecies or the like. Once again, thanks for the input concerning this. If you have any other thoughts on this phylogeny or my work please let me know. :)
Reply
:iconjonagold2000:
JonaGold2000 Featured By Owner Apr 15, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Alright, I see. I will note however that bricksmashtv is far from consensus on the issue of Tyrannosaurus species and as such I would advise against following him in that regard.
Reply
:iconzhejiangopterus:
Zhejiangopterus Featured By Owner Apr 14, 2017
Interesting placement of Betasuchus; it seems somewhat spatially displaced relative to other tyrannosauroids (I always assumed it was an abelisaur).

Also, Brusatte and Carr 2017 recover Yutyrannus as a Proceratosaurid and, per Bayesian analysis, the sister taxon of Sinotyrannus (which makes sense to me, given how close it is spatiotemprally). What do you think of this?
Reply
:iconpaleoaustin:
PaleoAustin Featured By Owner Apr 15, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
As JonaGold put it, it has been suggested that a land connection existed between the Netherlands and Appalachia. I am a supporter of this hypothesis and thus believe that Betasuchus is a Dryptosaur. However it is also possible that it could just be an abelisaur.

That does seem logical. I will most likely change its position in this as such. I am planning on releasing an updated version in the near future, changing some things such as D. horneri.
Reply
:iconjonagold2000:
JonaGold2000 Featured By Owner Apr 15, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Having done some phylogeny on it with :iconijrijd: I can tell you it's not that simple. It jumps around from between Tarascosaurus and Dryptosaurus. It's been suggested there was a landbridge between Appalachia and the landmass near Maastricht before due to the presence of animal groups found in both areas(herpetotheriids and lambeosaurines), but the classification of both is also rather hard due to their fragmentary nature. And Tarascosaurus is from France which is also rather close.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
February 22, 2017
Image Size
94.5 KB
Resolution
890×1083
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
479
Favourites
21 (who?)
Comments
18