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


At 03:55 AM 8/13/98 -0400, Peter Buchholz wrote:
>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 :-)
        D'OH! Yes, of course, this would definitely dictate the inclusion of
_Unenlagia_ within Aves. I'm afraid my mind has been too long in the other
half of Dinosauria (as has yours, Pete ;). If I recall correctly (and
there's a good chance I don't), not many non-avian coelurosaurs were
included in that study. Personally, I would prefer to see the position of
_Unenlagia_ analyized as part of a more inclusive study involving a large
number of coelurosaur taxa. IMHO, a study restricted to avialan ingroup taxa
is potentially less reliable in the placement of "basal" taxa, especially
within a taxon showing a relatively high degree of homoplaisy (e.g. any
theropod clade).

>This is counter to Novas and Puerta's analysis in the description of
>Unenlagia, where they place it as the closest outgroup of Aves
        What we need is the BIG TAMALE, the analysis to end all analyses,
something that incorporates all new data, and all taxa of reasonable
completeness. We're waiting patiently, Dr. Holtz... :)
    Jonathan R. Wagner, Dept. of Geosciences, TTU, Lubbock, TX 79409-1053
                    "...To fight legends." - Kosh Naranek