[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: "Chuniaoae" Ji et al. 1998
> I was printing off the supplementary information for Ji et al. 1998, and
> noticed that there were diagnoses for two clades -- "Chuniaoae" and
T. Michael Keesey wrote:
Is it kept in quotes?
Yes, it used at least once and only in quotes. That is why I left it in
quotes for my post. Then it is referred to as the _Caudipteryx_ + Avialae
clade in the next part of the supplementary information.
[referring to the _Caudipteryx_ + Avialae node]
Hmm... in the diagram in the Ostrom symposium volume, that node was
Dromavialae, but oviraptorosaurs were more basal.
_Caudipteryx_ does not appear on that diagram. I suppose you are referring
Or _Caudipteryx zoui_ + _Archaeopteryx lithographica_ + (some neornithean
species, e.g. _Vultur gryphus_), to keep in line with PhyloCode rules.
That would be preferable.
Not a big fan of this, though, given _Caudipteryx_' variable placement....
I don't see what you mean. Nearly universally, phylogenetic analyses have
found _Caudipteryx_ to be an oviraptorosaur.
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*