[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Gauthier and de Queiroz's Classification of Birds
First of all, should we fw this discussion to the PhyloCode mailing list?
Both Gauthier and de Queiroz are members there. (Although, the former seems
to lurk, and the latter has recently lamented about how little time he has
to work on the companion volume.)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mickey_Mortimer11" <Mickey_Mortimer11@email.msn.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 1:52 AM
> > _Avifilopluma_ (new clade name) = Clade("feathers" in _Vultur gryphus_)
> > ("'Feathers' refers to hollow-based, filamentous, epidermal appendages
> > produced by follicles." [...])
BTW, "parafeathers" are hollow, but not in the least filamentous, they are
obviously epidermal appendages, but AFAIK nothing can be said about whether
they were produced by follicles. So they wouldn't count.
> > _Carinatae_ = Clade("keeled sternum" in _Vultur gryphus_)
> Again, I'll ignore pterosaurs. Presumedly organisms that are so many
> "phylogenetic distance units" away don't count towards apomorphy-based
> definitions anymore.
"(apomorphy) in (species)" is short for "the first organism that possessed
(apomorphy) _homologous to that in (species)_ and all its descendants". So
nothing that's just one node away counts. Whether *Mononykus*,
*Confuciusornis* and maybe even *Ingenia* would count might depend on one's
phylogenetic hypothesis, apart from interpretation of when a keel is a keel;
*Sinraptor* (just reading the paper -- that keel is impressive) certainly
> But no, wait, those aren't traditional carinates at all.
_Traditionally_ Carinatae is the opposite of Ratitae, like Neo- and
Palaeognathae, just at different rank. The inclusion of *Ichthyornis* is a
relatively recent phenomenon.