By Popular Demand. . .


Femur:Tibia Ratio in Marginocephalians, and Relevant Outgroups

As a follow-up to our last post on thyreophorans, here are marginocephalians (ceratopsians and pachycephalosaurs) with some of their outgroups. Moving or removing the uncertainly-placed Stenopelix has little effect on character reconstruction.

This entry was posted in Data Exploration. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to By Popular Demand. . .

  1. Pingback: Analytical Software « The Open Dinosaur Project

  2. 220mya says:

    What sort of postcrania exist for Zuniceratops and Turanoceratops? I know the Zuni material comes from a disarticulated bonebed, so I guess any association between limbs is problematic. Too bad – because it would nicely fill the morphological gap between protoceratopsids and ceratopsids.

  3. Andy Farke says:

    There’s decent Zuni material, but it’s all disarticulated and multiple individuals. It is a bummer! Same for Turanoceratops. We’ll just have to hope for some good Mongolian or Chinese material.

  4. 220mya says:

    Is the difference in values between T. prorsus and T. horridus a real difference between taxa, or just a sampling issue?

  5. Andy Farke says:

    It’s almost certainly a sampling issue – on second glance through the specimens, most of them can’t even be distinguished to species (let alone genus).

  6. Nick Gardner says:

    It would be interesting to see a matrix of continuous characters using these sorts of ratios run in TNT since it permits continuous characters to have 0-65 states and at least 3 decimal places. It’d be cool to see what sort of tree resulted from running this analysis. 🙂


  7. Mike Taylor says:

    Well, maybe now the two Triceratops species CAN be separated. That looks like a significant proportional difference that the ODP has uncovered.

  8. Andy Farke says:

    Perhaps. . .I’m not sure how reliable the species assignments are, and Triceratops taxonomy is once again in a state of flux. Probably something to note in the paper, at least.

  9. Nick Gardner says:

    Is the range of variation between the Triceratops specimens sufficiently large enough to be considered significant? I might not be reading the graph right, but other ceratopsians appear to show large ranges of variation…

  10. David Dreisigmeyer says:

    Here’s some regression analysis plots (using data current as of 10 MAR 10) and a PCA plot of the Ceratopsians with the Humerus, Radius, Femur and Tibia all present:

    Data available here (as Allometry_plot.Rdata and PUBLIC_Allometry_plots_HISTORY.history):

    Here’s a paper that was previously referred to (sorry I can’t remember who brought it to our attention):

    Click to access 2008_1.pdf

    I would have liked to have presented the ‘Studentized residual’ in the plots but I’m not a statistician and have no idea how to do that for the nonlinear regressions. I’d be grateful if someone could explain how it’s done for a model of the form y = a + b * ( x ** c )! All that I could find was how to do it for linear models.

  11. Rexisto says:


    I really liked this type of statistics and no doubt I will be very useful for a study I am doing. But I have a question, are the measures of the femurs and tibias may be shared with us, is it possible to add the measurements of the metatarsals, too?, and that the movement is expected not only between the femur and tibia, but the length of the ball, which is sometimes very short or long depending on species.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s