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

RE: Hesperornis sp. nov.



>>
What about _Enaliornis_? - do Martin and Lim exclude this bird from the
Hesperornithiformes (as mooted by some other authors)?<<
They didn't mention Enaliornis, but they were really only talking about
faunas (faunae?) in North America---Asiahesperornis was only mentioned
in passing.

>>This has nothing to do with preservational bias?<<
Martin and Lim don't discuss that issue---which I agree is pretty
important.  Okay--REALLY important.  Absence of evidence and so on.
Note, however, that the lake-side origin of ornithurines is only
discussed in the introduction---it wasn't central to their thesis.  

It is interesting to note, however, that another article in this same
book, "The Significance of Early Cretaceous Bird Tracks" by Lim, Martin,
Zhou, Baek, and Yang makes much of the fact that several series of bird
tracks from early-K mud (either lake or ocean-side) all seem to be made
by ornithurines (they make this conclusion based on the fact that
enantiorniths have "little arch to the distal tarsometatarsus so the
digit divergence would be low".  They have a very neat tabulation of all
known Cretaceous bird tracks, and all these tracks were made by
ornithurine-type feet.  
So, we know that most (if not all) shore-birds were ornithurines, but
who knows what else the ornithurines were doing?

No problem about the info.  I'm glad I can finally give instead of ask.

Dan