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

distinction among sauropodomorphs and outgroups – including outgroup taxa as diverse as Herrerasaurus , Silesaurus , or Marasuchus (Fig. 50). The reason was a close morphological gradation for all members along PC 1 (Fig. 51); only PC 2 and PC 3 suggested a separation between sauropodomorphs and outgroups. The combined PC 1 and PC 2 ordination revealed the outgroup taxa ordination was stratomorphic: the morphological series leading from the outgroup strongly aligned with the fossil record first-appearance order of its members. Thyreophorans and neornithischians also followed a general, though not perfect, stratomorphic morphoseries from the Jurassic through Cretaceous. Lower Jurassic thyreophorans Scelidosaurus and Scutellosaurus mergedwith ornithischians and neornithischians ( e.g ., Agilisaurus, Heterodontosaurus , Hexinlusaurus ) and followed a series leading to Thescelosaurus and Parksosaurus in the Upper Cretaceous. However, the very end of the series was Tenontosaurus , a “basal” iguanodont from the Lower Cretaceous. The series aligned along both PC 1 and PC 2 (Fig. 56). The stratomorphic outgroups used for ceratopsians began with Triassic “basal” dinosaurs and silesaurids, moved into Lower Jurassic ornithischians, and then branched along PC 1 into marginocephalians on the right and thyreophorans + ornithopods on the left (Fig. 91). PC 1 also revealed a discontinuity between the outgroups and ceratopsians. Interestingly, the ceratopsian series was also stratomorphic; the ceratopsian series ranges from the Middle Jurassic to Upper Cretaceous. Yinlong and two Psittacosaurus species formed the base of the series and were separated from neoceratopsians by a gap. The ceratopsian stratomorphic series had an additional element: phylogeography. The conventional scenario is that an Asian Protoceratops -like ancestor crossed the Bering Straits and gave rise to later North American neoceratopsians in the Cretaceous. All the non-ceratopsid ceratopsians in the studied series, including neoceratopsians, were found in Asia; only Leptoceratops was from NorthAmerica. However, the scenario has become more complicated with the discovery of Asian ceratopsoids Turanoceratops and Sinoceratops (a centrosaurine ceratopsid), both of which may suggest migration back to Asia in the conventional model (e.g., Sues and Averianov 2009), and with the discovery of a North American “basal” neoceratopsian ( Aquilops ), suggesting an earlier dispersion from Asia to North America. Indeed, Figs. 96 and 97 do not show a biogeographic pattern for non-ceratopsid neoceratopsians, but they do show a phylogenetic pattern. In other words, the Asian forms ( Turanoceratops and Protoceratops ) do not cluster together apart from the North American forms ( Leptoceratops and Zuniceratops ). Rather, Protoceratops and Leptoceratops , non-ceratopsoids, cluster together and Zuniceratops is farther from the ceratopsids than Turanoceratops , which is the case in multiple recent ceratopsian phylogenies (Farke et al . 2014; Fry 2015). The increasing complexity of dinosaur biogeography presents an interesting opportunity for future creationist work. For the datasets here all stratomorphic outgroup series began in the Lower to Middle Mesozoic. It is suggested here that morphological series reflected the functional considerations of the skeletal anatomy of the species. Functional similarity was likely a reflection of ecological requirements. These results imply that some early Mesozoic communities included ecological gradient overprints. It is possible some gradients at the beginning of the Mesozoic are traceable into the mid-Mesozoic. Other researchers have noted convergence between Triassic communities and later Mesozoic communities, especially between pseudosuchians/“basal” archosauromorphs and dinosaurs (Stocker et al . 2016). 2. Bird-dinosaur relationships Among all the morphospatial patterns examined for the Dinosauria, the bird-dinosaur relationships were both the most unique and interesting. There are at least two different lessons derived from comparing the 2004 with the later 2017 datasets. One clear conclusion is that bird-dinosaur interpretations change substantially based on the quality of the data – all analyses warrant caution. Bird-dinosaur data through 2004 was sparse. The most relevant data matrix for bird-like theropods (e.g., Maniraptoriformes) was limited due to the amount of missing data. Standard baraminological techniques yielded twogroups.One group includeddromaeosaurids, a troodontid, and an avialan representative ( Archaeopteryx ). The positive BDC between members, and negative BDC with some outlying groups, implied a holobaramin. Yet caution is warranted sinceBDCwith disparate baramins can produce spurious correlation (e.g., tetanurans plus tyrannosauroids, Fig. 16) and few taxa were included. Additionally, this broad dromaeosaurid-affiliated group showed no negative correlation to outgroup taxa ( Tyrannosaurus , Allosaurus , and a generic composite outgroup). The second group was an ornithomimid-association that also lacked negative BDC against the outgroups. MDS results separated both groups but was tentative since the first coordinate axis explained only 35% of the variance, leaving 65% to be explained across the remaining axes. PCA was more instructive, though incomplete data hindered the analysis. In order to have a sufficient number of taxa in the analysis, all genera – including those missing up to 80% of their character data – were included (Fig. 27). In spite of the high proportion of missing data, group distinctions still emerged with several relationships evident. Oviraptorosaurs, dromaeosaurids, troodontids and ornithomimosaurs showed distinct clusters. We interpret the complex spatial relationships as an indication that bird-like theropod assemblages were distinct while simultaneously exhibiting complex mosaic relationships. In spite of the limited data, enough of a pattern may be evident to apply Hartwig-Scherer’s description of hominids as, “schmetztiegal unterschiedlicher morphologiemosaic” – or, “melting pot of morphological mosaics” – to bird-like theropod groups (Hartwig-Scherer 2002). Only two avialan taxa were included in the analysis ( Archaeopteryx and Confuciusornis ). As a result, very little can be said about bird- dinosaur relationships from the 2004 data. Matrices with bird-dinosaur data have improved since 2004 and have offered a consistent picture. Garner et al . (2013) employed six matrices, ranging from 2001 to 2011, with a general improvement in BDC distinctions over time. It is clear that modern birds and dinosaurs group separately, but also that some Jurassic and Cretaceous avians grouped with dinosaurs. In particular, Archaeopteryx and Wellnhoferia grouped with Deinonychosauria suggesting an affinity between some avialans and dromaeosaurs. PCA applied to Foth and Rauhut’s (2017) larger maniraptoran dataset revealed several helpful insights to the dromaeosaurid- Doran et al. ◀ Dinosaur baraminology ▶ 2018 ICC 446