The Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism (2018)

only taxa with 50% or greater complete character data; taxa with larger amounts of missing data were removed. Group ordinations visible within the inclusive dataset became more distinct when taxa with high percentages of missing data were removed (Figs. 3-4). We present possible explanations for this phenomenon in the Discussion. The remainder of the analyses in this study employ a 50% data cutoff, unless otherwise indicated. Dinosaurs are grouped within Ornithischia and Saurischia following Weishampel et al . (2004). 1. Saurischia A. Basal Saurischia The baraminic distance correlation results for the Langer (2004) data matrix, in Weishampel et al. (2004), are shown in Fig. 5. Results suggest separation between the saurischians and ornithischians plus Pisanosaurus . Positive BDC is present between Saturnalia , Sauropodomorpha, and Guaibasaurus and between Staurikosaurus , Herrerasaurus and the outgroup. Limited negative correlation exists between the ornithischians and some saurischians. Classical MDS results show little separation between the saurischians Saturnalia , Sauropodomorpha, Guaibasaurus and other groups. The outgroup, Eoraptor , Pisanosaurus and remaining ornithischians reflect no obvious clustering (Fig. 6). PCA results suggest separation but show no clustering between the few groups represented (Fig. 7). PCAresults for Nesbitt et al. (2009) provide amore complete picture but retain the group separations. PC 1 separates dinosaurs from the non-dinosaurian outgroup taxa (Fig. 8). PC 2 separates theropods from herrerasaurids, sauropodomorphs, and ornithsichians. PC 3 reveals little distinction between dinosaur taxa, which are all clustered together, but it does separate out the non-dinosaurian taxa (Fig. 9). Pseudosuchians cluster at the bottom, whereas the only pterosaur ( Dimorphodon ) is at the top, closer to Euparkeria , Erythrosuchus , and the hypothetical outgroup. B. Ceratosauria The BDC results for Tykoski and Rowe’s (2004) data matrix, in Weishampel et al . (2004), show three blocks of positive correlation (Fig. 10). There is shared positive correlation among coelophysoid taxa and Spinosauridae in the upper right block. There are a few instances of shared positive correlation between the coelophysoid + spinosaurid block and the middle block. The abelisauroid taxa (lower left) all share positive correlation and share negative correlation or no correlation with any other taxa. Classical MDS results show separation between Abelisauroidea and all other taxa (Fig. 11). PCA results show separation between Coelophysidae and the other taxa, but there is little clustering (Fig. 12) Abelisaurid taxa are separated out from the others through PC 1. The BDC results for Brissón Egli et al’s (2016) abelisauroid data matrix are shown in Fig. 13. BDC separates Abelisauridae from the non-abelisaurid taxa (including non-abelisaurid abelisauroids, non- abelisauroid ceratosaurs, and other non-ceratosaur taxa). The only exception is that the Jurassic, “basal” abelisaurid Eoabelisaurus is included in the non-abelisaurid block of taxa, correlating positively with Ceratosaurus , Limusaurus , and Masiakasaurus . The Abelisauroidea matrix had a high proportion of missing data. In order to preserve enough taxa for comparison, all taxa were included regardless of their proportions of missing data. PC 1 separated abelisaurids from the other taxa (Fig. 14). Noasauridae members ( e.g., Limusaurus and Masiakasaurus ) are widely spaced from members of Abelisauridae, although they are not clustered closely together, nor are they readily distinguished from the outgroup taxa. Eoabelisaurus , as with the BDC results, does not cluster with the abelisaurids, but is instead closest to Ceratosaurus and Genyodectes , a position that matches a recent ceratosaurian phylogeny (Wang et al., 2017). The Abelisauroidea form a series along PC 3 with the noasaurids clustered toward the bottom (Fig. 15). Eoabelisaurus is separated from the abelisauroids, once again closest to Ceratosaurus and Genyodectes . C. Basal Tetanurae The BDC results for Holtz et al.’s (2004) data matrix, inWeishampel et al . (2004), for “basal” Tetanurae and Tyrannosauroidea are shown in Fig. 16. Because the matrix included several groups above the family-level, including Tyrannosauridae, the BDC chart is ambiguous, only really distinguishing between Maniraptoriformes and other theropods. The BDC is displayed as a contrast to PCA results (Fig. 17), illustrating a limit in baraminic analysis for some datasets. BDC failed to distinguish groups with high disparity: Tyrannosauroidea, Maniraptoriformes, and other Theropoda. PCA reveals complex ordination patterns in the presence of large morphospatial disparities. Non-coelurosaur theropods and Tyrannosauroidea show a discontinuous morphoseries with a common trajectory. Maniraptoriforms cluster separately. PCA results for Carrano et al . (2012) showed a similar morphospatial series among the tetanurans (Fig. 18). Both PC 1 and PC 2 display distance between tetanurans and non-tetanuran theropods (Fig. 18). Additionally, tetanurans contain a series of spatially-connected taxa, linked gradationally from Sinosaurus (formerly “D. sinensis” ) to Megalosauridae to Coelurosauria, to Allosauroidea. The spinosaurids ( Suchomimus and Baryonyx ) are clustered together and are slightly removed from the tetanuran series. For PC 1 and PC 2 the Megalosauridae series may be stratomorphic, with fossil record first appearance order tracking the morphoseries (Wise 1995), but recent phylogenies suggest Monolophosaurus is more basal than Megalosauridae (Carrano et al . 2012). Additionally, Compsognathus and Ornitholestes , coelurosaurs, are clustered among the megalosaurids. PC 3 clusters Sinosaurus (“ D. sinensis ”) with the coelophysoids, and it separates out carcharodontosaurids from other tetanurans (Fig. 19). D. Tyrannosauroidea The BDC results for Holtz’s (2004) data matrix, in Weishampel et al . (2004), are shown in Fig. 20. This analysis was a tyrannosauroid- focused subset of the Holtz et al. (2004) dataset. There is clear positive BDC between the Tyrannosauroidea and negative BDC compared to several theropod outgroups. Classical MDS results confirm separation between Tyrannosauroidea and all other neotheropods (Fig. 21). Due to the small dataset, PCAwas employed on groups with as little as 30% complete character data. PCA results likewise support the separation between Tyrannosauroidea and other groups seen in MDS, although Eotyrannus was distant from the other tyrannosauroids (Fig. 22). Tyrannosauridae from Brusatte and Carr (2016) display a similar Doran et al. ◀ Dinosaur baraminology ▶ 2018 ICC 408