[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]


Jon Wagner wrote:
<<No phylogenetic definition of Aves allows the inclusion of
 _Unenlagia_ within that taxon (given current phylogenetic hypotheses). Given
 the criteria of Gauthier, we may refer to _Unenlagia_ as a "bird", but I
 prefer to restrict "bird" to a dinosaur which flies or is descended from
 flying dinosaurs (ok, ok, George, we know how you would apply this... :).>>

Actually, in Forster et al 1998's analysis with the paper on Rahona(vis),
Unenlagia, as well as Rahonavis, clades closest to Archaeopteryx, as
archaeopterygids, thus being within Aves :-)

This is counter to Novas and Puerta's analysis in the description of
Unenlagia, where they place it as the closest outgroup of Aves

Peter Buchholz