Description of a partial <i>Dromiceiomimus</i> (Dinosauria: Theropoda) skeleton with comments on the validity of the genus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dromiceiomimus brevitertius is a North American ornithomimid diagnosed primarily by the ratio of tibia length to femur length. It has recently, and perhaps incorrectly, been considered synonymous with Ornithomimus edmontonicus, with several authors questioning the utility of limb ratios in diagnosing taxa. While isolated ornithomimosaur material is common, specimens with sufficient diagnostic material to explore the question of synonymy are comparatively rare. The putative Dromiceiomimus specimen UALVP 16182 represents one of the few specimens in which diagnostic elements are available. It is therefore an important specimen for assessing the validity of Dromiceiomimus and for examining the utility of using limb proportions to diagnose ornithomimid taxa. In this paper, UALVP 16182 is described, the tibia/femur ratio is examined in closely related ornithomimid taxa, and the ratio is found to distinguish Dromiceiomimus from Gallimimus, Ornithomimus, and Struthiomimus. A phylogenetic analysis recovered Anserimimus and Ornithomimus as sister taxa with Dromiceiomimus as an outgroup. Comparison of the manus revealed differences in the morphology of metacarpal I and the flexor tubercle of manual ungual II-3. Differences also appear in the surangular and scapula. An examination of stratigraphic positions of various specimens indicates that Dromiceiomimus is generally higher in section than Ornithomimus, although there are too few specimens to be statistically significant. This study agrees with other studies in concluding that limb proportions are roughly isometric in small theropods like ornithomimids and that the tibia/femur ratio may therefore be useful for diagnosing certain small taxa. These findings suggest that Dromiceiomimus may indeed be a valid taxon.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".