Data from: Macroevolutionary trends in theropod dinosaur feeding mechanics

Figure S1. Comparison of von Mises stress plots of non-avialan theropod mandibles under a posterior-bite scenario. Left: original mandible; Right: simulated deformed mandible, showing the deformation (displacement) of the original mandible under loading and the biomechanical performance of this simulated form (see methods). Silhouettes modified from PhyloPic. Figure S2. Ancestral state reconstruction of (A) average mandibular stress and (B) bite efficiency of the non-avialan theropods studied under an anterior-bite scenario using linear parsimony. Figure S3. Ancestral state reconstruction of (A) average mandibular stress and (B) bite efficiency of theropods under posterior-bite scenario using linear parsimony. Figure S4. Workflow of the analyses conducted in this study, using the oviraptorosaurian Gigantoraptor erlianensis as an example. Figure S5. Biomechanical performance of the original and simulated deformed mandibles of non-avialan theropods under an anterior-bite scenario. Average mandibular stress of (A) major clades; (B) dietary groups; (C) theropod taxa. Bite efficiency of (D) major clades; (E) dietary groups; (F) theropod taxa. See Figure S5B for legend. Silhouettes modified from PhyloPic. Figure S6. Biomechanical performance of the original and simulated deformed mandibles of non-avialan theropods under a posterior-bite scenario. Average mandibular stress of (A) major clades; (B) dietary groups; (C) theropod taxa. Bite efficiency of (D) major clades; (E) dietary groups; (F) theropod taxa. See Figure S6B for legend. Silhouettes modified from PhyloPic. Figure S7. Ancestral state reconstruction of average mandibular stress of theropods under anterior-bite scenario using maximum likelihood. Figure S8. Ancestral state reconstruction of average mandibular stress of theropods under posterior-bite scenario using maximum likelihood. Figure S9. Ancestral state reconstruction of bite efficiency of theropods under anterior-bite scenario using maximum likelihood. Figure S10. Ancestral state reconstruction of bite efficiency of theropods under posterior-bite scenario using maximum likelihood. Figure S11. Comparison of maximum principal strain plots of non-avialan theropod mandibles under an anterior-bite scenario. Left: original mandible; Right: simulated deformed mandible, showing the deformation (displacement) of the original mandible under loading and the biomechanical performance of this simulated form (see methods). Silhouettes modified from PhyloPic. Figure S12. Comparison of maximum principal strain plots of non-avialan theropod mandibles under a posterior-bite scenario. Left: original mandible; Right: simulated deformed mandible, showing the deformation (displacement) of the original mandible under loading and the biomechanical performance of this simulated form (see methods). Silhouettes modified from PhyloPic. Figure S13. Comparison of maximum principal strain plot of the tyrannosauroids Tyrannosaurus and Tarbosaurus through ontogeny. Figure S14. Ancestral state reconstruction of the phylogenetic generalized least square regression residuals of (A) relative average mandibular stress and (B) relative bite efficiency of the non-avialan theropods studied under an anterior-bite scenario using linear parsimony. Figure S15. Ancestral state reconstruction of the phylogenetic generalized least square regression residuals of (A) relative average mandibular stress and (B) relative bite efficiency of the non-avialan theropods studied under a posterior-bite scenario using linear parsimony. Figure S16. Ancestral state reconstruction of the phylogenetic generalized least square regression residuals of average mandibular stress of theropods under anterior-bite scenario using maximum likelihood. Figure S17. Ancestral state reconstruction of the phylogenetic generalized least square regression residuals of average mandibular stress of theropods under posterior-bite scenario using maximum likelihood. Figure S18. Ancestral state reconstruction of the phylogenetic generalized least square regression residuals of bite efficiency of theropods under anterior-bite scenario using maximum likelihood. Figure S19. Ancestral state reconstruction of the phylogenetic generalized least square regression residuals of bite efficiency of theropods under posterior-bite scenario using maximum likelihood. Figure S20. Time-scaled composite phylogeny used in this study. Outgroup taxa relationships follow Novas, et al. 1. Coelurosaurian phylogenetic relationships follow Pei, et al. 2. The placement of Raptorex in Tyrannosauroidea follows Brusatte and Carr 3. The placement of Deinocheirus in Ornithomimosauria follows Lee, et al. 4. The placement of Jianchangosaurus in Therizinosauria follows Yao, et al. 5. The detailed phylogeny of Oviraptorosauria follows Qiu, et al. 6 (for early-diverging taxa) and Funston 7 (for Caenagnathidae and Oviraptoridae). Figure S21. Phylogeny used in this study with node numbers labelled. See Data S1F-G for reconstructed ancestral states of biomechanical characters using maximum likelihood. Supplemental reference