[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: A Word on ABSRD
> > Speculative scenario (shameless self-promotion strikes again)... what
> > say, my phylogeny, (Compsognathidae + (*Archaeopteryx* ?+ *Rahonavis* +
> > Dromaeosauridae) + (Arctometatarsalia + (Oviraptorosauria +
> > + *Yandangornis* + *Avimimus* + Pygostylia)))), comes to be accepted :-]
> > _before Aves will have been given a definition under the PhyloCode_?
> > as long as people don't use the crown-group definition of Aves (hardly
> > anyone still does), *Utahraptor*, *Tyrannosaurus* and *Ornithomimus* are
> > members of Aves (*Archaeopteryx* + Neornithes). While there are people
> > have expressed views like "then so be it", how many people would think
> > too, rather than change the definition of Aves? (Qualifying clauses?)
> Anything belonging to Clade (_Archaeopteryx_ + _Passer_), if not flighted
> itself, very likely had flighted ancestors. Therefore, if Dromaeosauridae,
> etc. fall in the clade, they should fit the "common" notion of Aves as
> well as ratites, Phorusrhacidae, etc.
> Furthermore, phylogenetic taxonomy isn't about fitting "common" notions,
> anyway. It's about labelling clades. So let it stand.
Good! So, from now on, I'll go around claiming *Tyrannosaurus* was the
biggest bird ever. =8-)
BTW, I've just taken a copy of a 1999 JVP article by HP Chris Brochu, "A
digitally rendered endocast of *Tyrannosaurus*". States clearly that *T.*
has a separate exit from the braincase for the V1 nerve... So we have a
peer-reviewed confirmation of the claim that the same feature occurs in