[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



----- Original Message -----
From: "Williams, Tim" <TiJaWi@agron.iastate.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 11:23 PM


> >Traditionally_ Carinatae is the opposite of Ratitae, like Neo- and
> >Palaeognathae, just at different rank. The inclusion of *Ichthyornis* is
> >a relatively recent phenomenon.
>
> I'm not so sure about a more inclusive Carinatae being a recent
phenomenon.
> Cracraft (1986)

_Relatively_ recent. Didn't know so many other people had my perception of
time (everything before ~ 1990, or maybe 1995, is history, and everything
older than me [1982] is antique). :-)

> split the Otnithurae into Hesperornithiformes and Carinatae,
> the latter taxon defined by the presence of a sternal keel, and including
> _Ichthyornis_ and Neornithes.

IMHO a good thing, at least as long as Odontognathae doesn't come back.

> Remember, also, that the absence of a keel
> from ratites is a secondary loss, associated with loss of adductive
function
> in the forelimb.

Of course it's a secondary loss. For a long time Linnaean taxonomists just
didn't care. I have several more or less old (see above) books that either
Carinatae or Neognathae for the same group, sometimes both at different
ranks, and wouldn't dream of including *Ichthyornis*.