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

evaluate its baraminic relationship to the other ornithomimosaurs. Ornithomimosaurs consistently clustered together in 3D MDS plots (Figs. 29, 43, 55, and 63) and share positive correlation in BDC plots (Figs. 28, 42, 54, and 62). These clusters/blocks of positive correlation consistently contained ornithomimids, as well as “basal” ornithomimosaurs (e.g., Pelecanimimus , Harpymimus ) and deinocheirids (e.g., Garudimimus ), although some MDS plots show Archaeornithomimus or Pelecanimimus in unusual positions. The BDC plot for the van der Reest and Currie (2017) non- pennaraptoran subset does show Harpymimus positively correlated with some coelurosaurs, but that is because the alvarezsaurids and Erlikosaurus are present in the analysis. Removal of these very disparate taxa results in ornithomimosaurs all positively correlated with one another and negatively correlated or not correlated at all with the other theropod taxa (Appendix, Fig. 72). Although some of these analyses only contained a handful of ornithomimosaur taxa, the Brusatte et al. (2014) analysis contained 10 ornithomimosaur taxa. Because ornithomimosaurs appear to be continuous with each other and discontinuous from other theropods, we interpret Ornithomimosauria to be a holobaramin. Nqwebasaurus has recently been considered the most basal ornithomimosaur (Choiniere et al. 2012). Nqwebasaurus had a low taxic relevance probably because the characters were not updated by the dataset authors to account for the newly described material. Although Nqwebasaurus never clusters with the ornithomimosaurs in the 3D MDS results we obtained, it is always closer to the ornithomimosaur cluster than the other “basal” coelurosaurs. It is possible that future analyses may find continuity between Nqwebasaurus and ornithomimosaurs. H. Tyrannosauroidea Tyrannosauroid baraminology has already been discussed at length by Aaron (2014b), and apart from Brusatte et al. (2014), these analyses contain very few tyrannosauroid taxa, so they add very little information. The results obtained from the tyrannosauroid + “basal” coelurosaur and “basal” tyrannosauroid + “basal” coelurosaur subset analyses of Brusatte et al. (2014) agree very well with the conclusions of Aaron (2014b). Tyrannosaurids are certainly a monobaramin based on shared positive correlation and obvious clustering in MDS. Xiongguanlong and Eotyrannus are positively correlated with one another, and the “basal” tyrannosauroid + “basal” coelurosaur subset BDC (Fig. 24) shows positive correlation with Appalachiosaurus , which was correlated positively with the tyrannosaurid block in the tyrannosauroid + “basal” coelurosaur BDC (Fig. 22). Additionally, the “basal” tyrannosauroid + “basal” coelurosaur BDC and MDS results show evidence for discontinuity between Eotyrannus + Xiongguanlong + Appalachiosaurus and “basal” Coelurosauria + Dilong + Guanlong . Interestingly, the MDS results for the tyrannosauroid + “basal” coelurosaur subset analysis (Fig. 23) show a tyrannosauroid trajectory, as was noted byAaron (2014b). This trajectory, however, looks like it starts with Dilong and Guanlong , which was not noted in the analyses conducted by Aaron (2014b). The MDS results for the “basal” tyrannosauroid + “basal” coelurosaur subset (Fig. 25) do not seem to show such a strong trajectory. As with Aaron (2014b), we tentatively conclude that Tyranno- sauridae + Appalachiosaurus + Xiongguanlong + Eotyrannus is a holobaramin. Also in agreement with Aaron (2014b), we would not be surprised if Dilong or Guanlong were to show evidence of continuity with this group in later analyses, but we currently do not consider them a part of this holobaramin. Unfortunately, Brusatte et al. (2014) did not include Yutyrannus in their dataset. Yutyrannus was included in the Lee et al. (2014) dataset, but since they only included three tyrannosauroids ( Tyrannosaurus , Yutyrannus , and Dilong ), it is difficult to draw any conclusions as to its baraminic status. Without Dilong or Yutyrannus in the “tyrannosauroid holo- baramin”, there are no feathered members known from this group. We suspect that Yutyrannus will turn out to be a member of this group, but only future analyses will tell. I. “Basal” Coelurosauria Unfortunately, many of these analyses treated “basal” coelurosaurs such as Ornitholestes , Tanycolagreus , and compsognathids essentially as outgroup taxa. As a result, they all clustered together and mainly shared positive correlation, which is probably masking the true diversity in this group. These taxa probably clustered together since they shared the commonality of lacking the synapomorphies of other more “derived” coelurosaur groups. This also may explain why taxa like Haplocheirus , Nqwebasaurus , and McLain et al. ◀ Feathered dinosaurs reconsidered ▶ 2018 ICC 503 Figure 64. BDC results of the Lamanna et al. (2014) analysis run at a 0.5 TRC. Black squares indicate significant positive correlation, whereas open circles indicate significant negative correlation. Figure 65. MDS results of the Lamanna et al. (2014) analysis run at 0.5 TRC. Colors: red – non-coelurosaur theropod; orange – Dromaeosauridae; light green – Avialae; pink – Oviraptorosauria. Velociraptor mongoliensis Herrerasaurus Archaeopteryx lithographica Yulong mini Nemegtomaia barsboldi Heyuannia yanshini Khaan mckennai Conchoraptor gracilis Rinchenia mongoliensis Zamyn Khondt oviraptorid Citipati osmolskae Incisivosaurus gauthieri Caudipteryx zoui Avimimus portentosus Anzu wyliei