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

Re: Ji and Ji's Classification

T. Mike Keesey wrote-

> Theropoda (stem)
> |--Ceratosauria (stem)
> |  `--Coelophysis
> `--Tetanurae (stem)
>    `--Avetheropoda (node)
>       |--Carnosauria (stem)
>       |  |--Allosauridae
>       |  `--Sinraptoridae
>       `--Coelurosauria (stem)
>          `--Metatheropoda (node; new clade)
>             |--Aptilonia (stem)
>             |  `--Compsognathus
>             |--Eoptilonia (stem)
>             |  `--Sinosauropteryx
>             `--Maniraptoriformes (node)
>                |--Arctometatarsalia (stem)
>                |  `--Troodon
>                |--Oviraptorosauria (stem)
>                |  `--Oviraptor
>                `--Maniraptora (diagrammed strangely; probably meant to be
>                   |--Dromaeosauridae
>                   `--Dromavialae (node; new clade)
>                      |--Chuniaoia (stem)
>                      |  `--Protarchaeopteryx
>                      `--Avialae (node)
>                         |--Archaeopteryx
>                         `--Aerialae (node; new clade)
>                            |--Enantiornithes (stem)
>                            |  `--Sinornis
>                            |--Orthornithes (stem)
>                            |  `--Confuciusornis
>                            `--Neornithes (stem)
>                               |--Paleognathae (stem)
>                               `--Neognathae (stem)
>                                  `--Aves

Ahhhhhhh!  Why the new clade names for _useless_ clades?!
So, Metatheropoda is Sinosauropteryx + Compsognathus + Neornithes?  Would be
very close to Coelurosauria and probably synonymous with Avifilopluma sensu
stricto.  And why the meta- prefix?
Aptilonia is not only _useless_ (being a junior synonym of Compsognathidae
and Compsognathia), but a probable misnomer as well.
Eoptilonia is a junior synonym of Sinosauropterygidae.
Does that mean Arctometatarsalia was based on Troodon (should be
Ornithomimus of course)?  Same could be asked of Ceratosauria and
And Dromavialae is Protarchaeopteryx + Neornithes?  At least that's probably
the Enigmosauria + Paraves clade!  Yay!  A name at last (and a horrible
I suppose there's not a Protarchaeopterygidae yet, so Chuniaoia actually has
a use. :-(
Archaeopteryx-based Avialae?  Away with you!
Orthornithes is the stem of Confuciusornithidae (Confuciusornis +
Changchengornis).  Confuciusornithiformes would be a better stem, but hasn't
been defined.
Enantiornithes based on Sinornis?  Just watch as Enantiornithes doesn't
include Enantiornis.

> Whoops, missed a few (semi-)proposed taxa in here. They merely state it
> *may* be useful to name these:
> _Aviplumosa_ = Clade("'natal' down" in _Vultur gryphus_)
> _Avipinna_ = Clade("pennaceous feathers" in _Vultur gryphus_)
> _Aviremigia_ = Clade("remiges and rectrices" in _Vultur gryphus_)

May be useful?!  Do these people know how uncommon epidermal structures are
in the fossil record?
Would "natal down" be like the tufts in Sinornithosaurus?  If so, Aviplumosa
sensu stricto would be the enigmosaur-paravian clade, battling against
Dromavialae for priority.  At least it excludes pterosaurs and psittacosaurs
Avipinna sensu stricto is... um.... also that clade.  Based on
Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx again.
Aviremigia sensu stricto on the other hand is.... also, that clade.  Based
on the same taxa.
So, Dromavialae = Aviplumosa = Avipinna = Aviremigia.  Take your pick.

Tim Williams wrote-

> "'Feathers' refers to hollow-based, filamentous, epidermal appendages
> produced by follicles."  Those hairy pterosaurs may throw a spanner in the
> works.  Not to mention the tail of that psittacosaur specimen.  (And do
> 'parafeathers' of _Longisquama_ count? ;-)  )

No, of course not.  Those have 'parafilaments', are 'parahollow' and consist
of 'paraepidermal' appendages.  Didn't you read Maderson et al. (2001)? :-)

Mickey Mortimer