Hi again Chase. I recently discovered that Yun (2017) copied some of my commentary on macropus from The Theropod Database without attribution in his paper- http://theropoddatabase.blogspot.com/2017/07/theropod-database-pilfered-again.html . I saw the specimens back in 2009 at the AMNH and have very high resolution photos (see example on that blog page and right click 'view image' and magnify) if you wish to use them in this publication, assuming your figures weren't just resized to be lower res for preprint purposes.

Dear Ms. Mortimer, Thanks so much for your comment and for your interest in these specimens. I originally tried to comment on your blog, but it didn't work (I figured I'd let you know in case it was because of an issue or something with the comments section there). In regards to the syntypes being a chimaera, I think the evidence for the proximal metatarsal belonging to an ornithomimosaur is solid, and so I concur with Brusatte et al. (2012)(referenced in the preprint) regarding the identification of this bone. I am still unsure of the origin of the distal metatarsal II, but the phalanges are clearly ornithomimosaurian (more robust ornithomimosaur pedal phalanges have been found in the Atlantic Coastal Plain than even those in AMNH 2553, and I mean to the extent where I misidentified such bones as tyrannosaur elements even with extensive firsthand examination). For these latter specimens, the similarity of them to the phalanges of derived ornithomimosaurs is uncanny. Brusatte et al. (2012) are unclear about their interpretation of these specimens, though I think I remember that, when I checked in to view them, they were with number tags (you're required to fill in the information on these and place them with the specimens you're working on at the AMNH to ensure no specimens are lost, as I guess you also learned when you visited) labeled as "Ornithomimus" antiquus with Dr. Brusatte's name next to this identification. Don't quote me on that though, because my memory has notoriously been ridiculously bad in certain cases. After comparison of the photo on your blog with those in this preprint (though I do have better resolution photos of the specimens), I may take you up on your offer. The specimens definitely suffered a bit from pyrite disease between the time you photographed them and I did. You have my email address above. Thanks so much again for the offer! Regards, Chase Brownstein

Hi Chase. After writing up the new Database entry using your preprint, I have a few comments. You reference Brusatte et al. (2012) in the preprint, but don't include it in the bibliography. Unless you mean the SVP abstract, which doesn't explicitly mention macropus material. So which paper is that? As for the proximal metatarsal, I suppose it depends on the amount of erosion present. Discounting erosion, it looks more similar to metatarsal II, but the Ornithomimus redescription shows ornithomimids can have lateral notches on metatarsal II as well, so my argument there fails. It's good to know robust ornithomimosaur phalanges are a thing. Overall, I'm in support of your arguments of macropus being a chimaera and indeterminate. Regarding your preprint, I do have a few suggestions for clarity. You state "The cnemial crest has been partially destroyed by erosion, and thus the autopomorphy of the cnemial crest being visible in ventral view of proximal tibia given by Yun (2017) for “Teihivenator” cannot be supported." But it was Dryptosaurus whose cnemial crest was claimed to not be visible in posterior/ventral view, so I assume you meant its crest was eroded, not macropus'? I'd also be more clear about why Yun's character of "medial tibial condyle is triangular, whereas lateral tibial condyle is round" is flawed instead of merely stating "the lateral posterior condyle is also too poorly preserved for morphological description, thus undermining one other autopomorphy listed by Yun." Something more akin to "medial condyles are normally triangular in tyrannosauroids while the shape of the lateral condyle cannot be determined in AMNH 2550." Not sure if that's true, but something more direct in that vein. Similarly, instead of saying "Considering the eroded nature of the specimen, the understanding of this notch as a distinguishing feature of the tyrannosaur to which this tibia corresponds is considered ambiguous", try something more direct like "the apparent depth of the notch may be due to erosion, so is considered ambiguous." Finally, when you address the tibial malleoli by saying "Nevertheless, the identification of this feature as an autopomorphic trait of the tibia by Yun (2017) is considered nebulous, as Yun (2017) even noted that other derived tyrannosauroids display this feature", I think it would be good to state which derived tyrannosauroids have it. Yun copied Bistahieversor from the Database and listed alioramins as well, though both the altai and sinensis holotypes only have articulated tibiotarsi. It is the big thing distinguishing macropus from Dryptosaurus and Appalachiosaurus though, so I feel it deserves more discussion of what taxa do and don't show the state. Keep up the good work.