Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Dinosauria Phylogeny by Albertonykus Dinosauria Phylogeny by Albertonykus
A phylogeny of dinosaurs I made some time ago and updated lately. Based upon the phylogenies here.

2011 update: Added Caenagnathoidea, Archaeopterygidae (provisionally as basal paravians), and "Changchunsauria", renamed "Sapeornithidae" to Omnivoropterygidae, and removed the possibly non-monophyletic "Dilophosauridae", "Polacanthidae", and "Camptosauridae".

2012 update: Added Orionides, Piatnitzkysauridae, Euhelopodidae, and "Stokesosauria", renamed Alvarezsauroidea to Alvarezsauria and "Sinraptoridae" to Metriacanthosauridae, and removed the possibly non-monophyletic "Saurornitholestinae". Tweaked the phylogeny of ornithopods and euornithines somewhat. Also, new formatting! (Courtesy of :iconclassicalguy: , who introduced me to the program FreeMind.)

2013 update: Added Saturnaliidae, replaced "Zephyrosauria" with its now-published name Orodrominae, and removed the possibly non-monophyletic "Guaibasauridae" and "'Changchunsauria'" (which would be Jeholosauridae now). Minor tweaks with the phylogeny of ornithopods, neosauropods, and neotheropods. Put clades with ambiguous relationships in polytomies. (No clue why I hadn't thought of that before.)

2014 update: Added Pennaraptora and Camarasauridae, re-added Saurornitholestinae and Jeholosauridae, renamed "Saurolophinae" to Hadrosaurinae, and removed the possibly non-monophyletic "Coronaves", "Metaves", and "Thescelosauridae".

2014 secondary update: I may have been too hasty in making the update this year, because Holtz made some significant changes to his lecture notes mid-way through the semester. Added Deinocheiridae, Caudipterygidae, and Jinfengopteryginae and tweaked the phylogeny of coelurosaurs.

2015 update: Added Hongshanornithidae, Thyreophoroidea, and Hadrosauromorpha, re-added Dilophosauridae, and renamed "Caudipterygidae" to Caudipteridae. Tweaked the phylogeny of avetheropods. The biggest change is the addition of monogeneric lineages, because I started to feel that excluding them was arbitrary.

Early 2017 update (which was meant to be in 2016): Added Bahariasauridae, Noasaurinae, Elaphrosaurinae, Ornithomimoidea, Troodontinae, Somphospondyli, Andesauroidea, Rhabdodontomorpha, and Iguanodontidae, removed "Yunnanosauridae" and "Bagaceratopsidae", lumped Stormbergia into Lesothosaurus, expanded Nodosauridae and Ankylosauridae, and tweaked the phylogeny of ceratosaurs, tyrannosauroids, avialans, sauropodomorphs, and ornithischians. (I have decided that I won't be tracking minor shifts and additions of monogeneric taxa.)
Add a Comment:
 
:icon5raptorboy:
5raptorboy Featured By Owner Apr 21, 2017
Are you going to factor in Ornithoscelida eventually?
Reply
:iconalbertonykus:
Albertonykus Featured By Owner Apr 21, 2017
Perhaps. This is composited from Holtz's lecture notes, so in part it depends on whether he chooses to use Ornithoscelida for the course this is based on. However, I may do an "Ornithoscelida version" (similar to how I did two versions of crown-bird phylogeny) even if he doesn't.
Reply
:icon5raptorboy:
5raptorboy Featured By Owner Apr 21, 2017
Cool! I'm glad that you have the dedication to both keep this accurate with new discoveries, as well as provide info about new theories.
Reply
:iconalbertonykus:
Albertonykus Featured By Owner Apr 22, 2017
Thanks! I try, but Holtz does most of the work behind this one, really.
Reply
:icondurusoraptor:
Durusoraptor Featured By Owner Jun 22, 2016
awesome :o
Reply
:iconalbertonykus:
Albertonykus Featured By Owner Jul 16, 2016
Thank you!
Reply
:iconspongebobfossilpants:
Holtz said on the DML a while ago that Sereno once supported Phytodinosauria. Do you know which paper (if any) this comes from? My only guess is his 1986 ornithischian paper.
Reply
:iconalbertonykus:
Albertonykus Featured By Owner Mar 28, 2016
It may be his 1984 article "The phylogeny of Ornithischia: A reappraisal". (However, I'm not aware of any place it is available online, even as an abstract.)
Reply
:iconaustroraptor:
Austroraptor Featured By Owner Dec 7, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Very nice! Though from what i recall, Megaraptorans are now considered early tyrannosauroids rather than carnosaurs. Atleast since we have a new juvenile and a paper on it.  www.sciencedirect.com/science/…
Reply
:iconalbertonykus:
Albertonykus Featured By Owner Edited Dec 7, 2015
It's an interesting result, but I'm under the impression many other theropod workers (including Holtz, who compiled the information this graphic is based on) are not convinced yet and would like to see it recovered in additional analyses besides that one. Here I have placed them in an unresolved position, their relationships to other avetheropods uncertain.
Reply
:iconaustroraptor:
Austroraptor Featured By Owner Dec 7, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Ahh i see, that's definately an understandable choice, looks very nice anyway!
Reply
:iconthe-nerdinator:
The-Nerdinator Featured By Owner Dec 6, 2015
Wow. I am going to need this.
Reply
:iconspongebobfossilpants:
SpongeBobFossilPants Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2015
Would you be surprised if titanosaurs really were diplodocoids after all?
Reply
:iconjeda45:
Jeda45 Featured By Owner Dec 5, 2015
Well, titanosaurs have never been regarded as diplodocids, rather, there's been question over whether titanosaurs were more closely related to diplodocids or to brachiosaurids. The evidence in favor for Titanosauriformes (a brachiosaur-titanosaur clade) is overwhelmingly better than the evidence in favor of Homalosauropodoidea (a disused taxon for peg-toothed sauropods, such as titanosaurs and diplodocids).

I'd be as surprised of Homalosauropodoidea being recovered as I would be surpised if tyrannosaurs turned out to be carnosaurs after all.
Reply
:iconalbertonykus:
Albertonykus Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2015
Somewhat.
Reply
:iconspongebobfossilpants:
While no one except Peters currently accepts Phytodinosauria (to my knowledge), has anyone explicitly said "the characters originally used by Bakker, Paul, Olshevsky, etc. to support Phytodinosauria are wrong because X"?
Reply
:iconalbertonykus:
Albertonykus Featured By Owner Apr 23, 2015
I'm not aware of any. It's mainly been falsified because (as far as I'm aware) no actual phylogenetic analysis has recovered it.
Reply
:iconspongebobfossilpants:
Don't some basal theropods have the thumb morphology Bakker used to support it?
Reply
:iconalbertonykus:
Albertonykus Featured By Owner Apr 24, 2015
Yes, it appears to be a basal dinosaurian trait.
Reply
:iconspongebobfossilpants:
SpongeBobFossilPants Featured By Owner Dec 6, 2014
While I'm not convinced on metavian monophyly, have any explicit alternatives been proposed?

Could mirandornithines be charadriiforms after all? ;)
Reply
:iconalbertonykus:
Albertonykus Featured By Owner Dec 6, 2014
This page is a good review of what has been going on with Metaves.
Reply
:iconspongebobfossilpants:
SpongeBobFossilPants Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2014
Do you like the idea of making a neornithine-specific piece? :iconclassicalguy: made a pretty good one, but it doesn't deal with how members of the major bird groups are related to each other.
Reply
:iconalbertonykus:
Albertonykus Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2014
I'll consider it.
Reply
:iconspongebobfossilpants:
Hasn't Mickey Mortimer argued that Caudipterygidae should actually be Caudipteridae?

Also, when did Anchiornis end up back as a troodontid? The syllabus text indicates that Aurornis is also a troodontid now, which is news to me.
Reply
:iconalbertonykus:
Albertonykus Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2014
Yes, Caudipteridae is probably "correct". Anchiornis and Aurornis as troodonts is based on Brusatte et al. (2014).
Reply
:iconspongebobfossilpants:
The syllabus also suggests that Xiaotingia, Eosinopteryx and/or Aurornis may be junior synonyms of Anchiornis. Did that also come from there? I thought Xiaotingia had incredibly apomorphic teeth…

BTW, can I please have a copy of that paper? Send me a note.
Reply
:iconalbertonykus:
Albertonykus Featured By Owner Edited Nov 18, 2014
The possible synonymy of the Tiaojishan paravians is Holtz's personal suspicion, not from any published source. None of the characters used in diagnosing Xiaotingia are dental features, and as a matter of fact the description notes that its teeth are not terribly different from some other basal paravians. Even in the case that they were, we would need to demonstrate that the differences could not be explained by ontogeny to falsify the notion.
Reply
:iconulterno617:
ulterno617 Featured By Owner Oct 25, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
you know these are interesting...thats if i understood it.
*gasp* i found nemo's snaid stuff yesterday.
Reply
:iconalbertonykus:
Albertonykus Featured By Owner Oct 25, 2014
You'll probably get the hang of it soon enough!

Memo makes some really creative things for sure. I still need to go through Snaiad in depth myself!
Reply
:icongojira5000:
Gojira5000 Featured By Owner Edited Sep 6, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
So, as of now, Eotyrannus is either a megaraptoran or a "stokesosaurid", if that grouping proves right.

As for a Tyrannosauroidea placement of Megaraptora; it's still a hypothesis, but one that has (so far) been lent evidence that supports it more than evidence that detracts from it outside of papers, like the Siats paper, that were likely finishing being written when the 2013 paper was released (I could be wrong on that, though.)

The pictures I see of the juvenile skull do look an awful lot like the skull of Dilong, but that's not much proof for the idea. Still, it's at least giving people more to chew over in the theropod clading scene.

Well, outside of the eternal hell that is avian classification. :p
Reply
:iconalbertonykus:
Albertonykus Featured By Owner Sep 6, 2014
Eotyrannus is almost certainly not a megaraptor; the only characters that currently support that position were incorrectly coded.

All reconstructed phylogenies are hypotheses, and tyrannosauroid megaraptors are a new and novel result that remains to be tested using other matrices. We shall see, one way or another.
Reply
:iconspongebobfossilpants:
SpongeBobFossilPants Featured By Owner Sep 6, 2014
Where was I when Hadrosaurinae came back?

Have any non-Senter analyses recovered Coeluridæ?
Reply
:iconalbertonykus:
Albertonykus Featured By Owner Sep 6, 2014
Hadrosaurinae was recovered by the analysis in the description of Zhanghenglong.

Choiniere's matrix also finds Coeluridae in the description of Aorun (although they don't label it).
Reply
:iconulterno617:
ulterno617 Featured By Owner Sep 4, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
so this is  like the tree of all the dinosaur families?
Reply
:iconalbertonykus:
Albertonykus Featured By Owner Sep 5, 2014
More or less!
Reply
:iconjeda45:
Jeda45 Featured By Owner Sep 4, 2014
I'd personally recommend only using Eudromaeosauria, not Dromaeosaurinae, Saurornitholestinae, or Velociraptorinae. Eudromaeosaurian phylogeny is so variable and generally unsatisfying that for the time being it's hard to say anything about it.

As far as I know, most phylogenetic analyses to date have a priori favored an either coelurosaurian or carnosaurian origin for Megaraptora--that is, Megaraptora consistently seems to end up in whichever of the two clades has better taxon sampling in a given analysis. I personally would put them in Tyrannosauroidea in light of the new material of Megaraptor, and that most analyses with more than three taxa in both clades (except for Cau's megamatrix) seem to find it as a clade of tyrannosauroids.

Compsognathidae may or may not even be a thing--they aren't always monophyletic and juveniles often end up there. I'd also put them as tyrannoraptorans, though.

Troodontidae seems to be gaining momentum as sister-clade of Avialae, and I haven't seen anything about non-avialan Archaeopteryx in a while.

I'm curious about "Stokesosauria", though--what evidence is there for that? I've seen Stokesosaurus as either a proceratosaurid or as one of many basal tyrannosauroids, what's your reasoning in making them be a noteworthy clade?

What's your opinion on rarely-used families which represent lineages which have seemingly been distinct for tens of millions of years (e.g. Avimimidae, Deinocheiridae, and Dryptosauridae)?
Reply
:iconalbertonykus:
Albertonykus Featured By Owner Sep 4, 2014
This diagram is purely a composite put together from the cladograms given here, so none of these decisions are my own. That said, I can offer a few responses.

Although most analyses have not adequately tested the possibility of megaraptors as coelurosaurs, I'm also only aware of one dataset that has recovered them as tyrannosauroids.

"Stokesosauria" is based on a clade recovered in the paper that coined Juratyrant that includes Stokesosaurus, Juratyrant, and Eotyrannus.

On rarely-used "families": those appear to be monotypic, and as such superfluous. That's not to say we'll never discover sister taxa that could make using those names worthwhile though. The ongoing research on the new material of Deinocheirus, for instance, has reportedly recovered some previously unrecognized close relatives.
Reply
:iconspongebobfossilpants:
SpongeBobFossilPants Featured By Owner Sep 6, 2014
Do we know which taxa they are?
Reply
:iconalbertonykus:
Albertonykus Featured By Owner Sep 6, 2014
The close relatives of Deinocheirus? Garudimimus and Beishanlong (assuming results haven't changed since last year's SVP).
Reply
:iconjeda45:
Jeda45 Featured By Owner Sep 4, 2014
So it's entirely a compilation of Holtz's cladograms? Fair enough.

I still recommend dispensing with subdivisions of Eudromaeosauria pending better analysis.

Megaraptora has been found within Tyrannosauroidea by Porfiri et al. 2014 and Novas et al. 2013, and some individual megaraptorans (e.g. Orkoraptor) were originally identified as coelurosaurs. As far as I know, Cau's megamatrix is the only analysis to have included adequate coelurosaur sampling that didn't find them to be coelurosaurs.

Archaeopterygidae and Omnivoropterygiformes may be monotypic and Ceratosauridae and Allosauridae both include only one well-established genus, and despite monotypy, taxa like Deinocheiridae or Bahariasauridae (assuming that that is where Deltadromeus lies) are more significant to dinosaur diversity than, say, Yunnanosauridae. Which is also monotypic as far as I know.
Reply
:iconalbertonykus:
Albertonykus Featured By Owner Sep 4, 2014
... Granted, the decision to omit genus-level taxa was my own choice here, as an arbitrary preference for the sake of avoiding "clutter".
Reply
:iconalbertonykus:
Albertonykus Featured By Owner Edited Sep 5, 2014
Novas et al. (2013) and Porfiri et al. (2014) are the same team of authors using the same dataset (with the added information from the new Megaraptor specimen in the latter, of course).

Agreed that Archaeopterygidae and Omnivoropterygiformes are probably monotypic, but again, not my personal choice. My original intention of this was purely to compile Holtz's summarized cladograms into one graphic. Yunnanosauridae is probably meant to include Jingshanosaurus.
Reply
:iconjeda45:
Jeda45 Featured By Owner Sep 4, 2014
Well, a slightly modified version of the dataset, but you're right. Nonetheless, it's the only published dataset including multiple megaraptorans and more than three coelurosaurs, as far as I know.
Reply
:iconalbertonykus:
Albertonykus Featured By Owner Sep 5, 2014
Hope it inspires independent, similarly comprehensive analyses, at any rate!
Reply
:iconjeda45:
Jeda45 Featured By Owner Sep 5, 2014
Indeed. Here's hoping that Andrea Cau publishes a detailed version of his megamatrix soon.
Reply
:iconzopteryx:
ZoPteryx Featured By Owner Sep 4, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
This is great!  A few questions though: Why is there no node for true iguanidontians?  And what is your opinion on the position of neovenatorids/megaraptora?
Reply
:iconalbertonykus:
Albertonykus Featured By Owner Sep 4, 2014
There is a node for iguanodontians! With respect to megaraptors: we need more studies! Many of the theropod workers whose opinions I've seen don't appear convinced yet that they are tyrannosauroids though.
Reply
:iconzopteryx:
ZoPteryx Featured By Owner Sep 4, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Aw, I see. :) (Smile) 
Reply
:iconspongebobfossilpants:
Sorry for the double comment, but when was the last analysis that had non-tyrannoraptoran compsognathids?
Reply
:iconalbertonykus:
Albertonykus Featured By Owner Aug 16, 2014
Their position is so labile that I haven't been paying attention. I don't think there's been a recent analysis that adequately tests their affinities, other than maybe Cau's megamatrix (which still hasn't been revealed in full, but the iterations I've seen have compies as tyrannoraptorans).
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
September 14, 2010
Image Size
830 KB
Resolution
2798×4333
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
5,355 (4 today)
Favourites
93 (who?)
Comments
101
Downloads
168
×