Talk:Sciurumimus

Illustration
I'm a little annoyed to see someone has made an alteration to my original illustration without stating they'd done it which means the illustration is actually substandard in the eye area. I will be correcting this shortly. Arkady Rose (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess it was believed you would not return to fix it. FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it's fixed now. Would have been nice if they could have done a decent job instead of butchering it in MS Paint first though. Arkady Rose (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fix, and it still needs a hallux, by the way! FunkMonk (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem; I'll work on the hallux tomorrow as I'll be out this evening so can't spare more time to work on it today. Arkady Rose (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Source problem?
The article says "Although originally classified as a basal megalosauroid, later phylogenetic analyses cast doubt on this placement. (...) The relationships of Sciurumimus were tested in 2013, when an analysis containing all of the original data, plus additional data and corrections, was published in the journal Nature. This revised analysis found Sciurumimus to be one of the most primitive members of the Coelurosauria, more derived than the megalosauroids." The source is the description of Aurornis, "A Jurassic avialan dinosaur from China resolves the early phylogenetic history of birds", but where in the article is Sciurumimus mentioned? They analyse the phylogeny of Paraves and do not mention megalosaurs or basal coelurosaurs. Did I miss something or does the source really not say anything about Sciurumimus?Kiwi Rex (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The complete results of the analysis are published in the supplementary material (pp. 3–5). Therein Sciurumimus indeed appears as one of the basalmost members of the Coelurosauria. However, this analysis does not contain “all of the original data, plus additional data and corrections” since the majority of the basal tetanuran taxa are omitted! The only non-coelurosaur taxa included are Dilophosaurus, Dubreuillosaurus, Monolophosaurus, and Sinraptor. And the authors were even aware of that, saying in the SM (p. 11): “The possible megalosauroid Sciurumimus is resolved among basalmost coelurosaurs, not closely related to Juravenator; although this placement is strongly supported by a Bremer support value=7, it may be biased by poor sampling among basal tetanurans in our analysis and so is not discussed further here.” (emphasis by me) Hence, the results of the analysis by Godefroit et al. (2013) are of limited value only... --Gretarsson (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: I now have modified the respective paragraph accordingly... --Gretarsson (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)