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

Re: "Chuniaoae" Ji et al. 1998



I wrote:
> I was printing off the supplementary information for Ji et al. 1998, and
> noticed that there were diagnoses for two clades -- "Chuniaoae" and Avialae.



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 labelled
Dromavialae, but oviraptorosaurs were more basal.
(http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/2002Feb/msg00463.html)



_Caudipteryx_ does not appear on that diagram. I suppose you are referring to _Protarchaeopteryx_.



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.



Nick Gardner

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus