[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Theropod phylogenies
"Richard Forrest" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
I don't understand: if we can't resolve the relationships of modern birds,
how does fossil evidence help?
Extant birds are very derived. Each avian order has had a long time (> 65
Ma for some/most? orders) to accumulate a long list of apomorphies.
Moreover, the different neornithine lines ("orders") may have evolved very
rapidly, as seems to be the case for placentals. Thus the apomorphies that
diagnose each order might have appeared quite suddenly. Discovering taxa
(i.e. fossils) at the base of each order will help to resolve the basal
relationships of neornithine orders. Basal taxa are more likely to preserve
primitive character-states that can be used to link one order to another.
To give a comparable situation to illustrate the value of basal taxa: The
discovery of basal oviraptorosaurs (_Incisivosaurus_), basal therizinosaurs
(_Beipiaosaurus_), basal dromaeosaurids (_Microraptor_) and basal
troodontids (_Sinovenator_) has helped enormously in resolving the basal
relationships of maniraptorans. The dromaeosaurid-troodonid clade
(Deinonychosauria) and oviraptorosaur-therizinosaur clade ("Enigmosauria")
now appear far superior to alternative arrangements. If we only had the
derived representatives to base our analyses on (e.g., _Erlikosaurus_,
_Velociraptor_, _Oviraptor_, _Troodon_) the resulting phylogenies would be
much murkier and less stable (as indeed they were, prior to the discovery of
the Jehol fauna).
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*