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

Re: Dinosauricon Phylogeny: complete



--- David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mike Taylor" <mike@indexdata.com>
> 
> > Hi Mike, great job.
> 
> Indeed.
> Though, a cladogram without lines is in some places difficult to read.

Yes, I'll be working on that issue.
 
> > Looks like you have hell of a lot more birds than previously.  Surely
> > classifying Aves is no part of your work?  (Especially as it's still
> > so controversial even among specialists.)  I'd have expected you to
> > let it go after the Nornithes node.
> 
> What about letting it go after the K-T boundary?

That is precisely the idea.
 
> And now a long list of comments...

Cool!
 
> Dromaeosauridae: I don't know how much confidence you have. I'd be bold
> enough to write

The idea is to present a somewhat firm consensus. I already feel I've put too
much detail into certain other parts, and may cut back.
 
> *Dromaeosauridae* _sensu lato_
> # ? [_incertae sedis_] *Megaraptor*
> # [_incertae sedis_] *Nuthetes*
> # ? [_incertae sedis_] *Ornithodesmus*
> # [_incertae sedis_] *Pyroraptor*
> # [_incertae sedis_] *Variraptor*
> #
>   # *Microraptor*
>   # ? *Cryptovolans*
> #
>   # *Sinornithosaurus*
>   #
>     # *Bambiraptor*

Something like this seems reasonable.

>     # *Dromaeosauridae* _sensu stricto_
>       # *Velociraptor*
>       # *Dromaeosaurinae*
>         #?
>           # *Deinonychus*
>           # *Saurornitholestes*
>         #

This is an interesting grouping.
>           # *Achillobator*
>           # *Adasaurus*
>           # *Dromaeosaurus*
>           # ? *Unenlagia*
>           # *Utahraptor*

Perhaps I'll change it to
Dromaeosauridae sensu lato
| (all the incertae sedis stuff)
|--+?-Cryptovolans
|  `--Microraptor
`--+--Bambiraptor
   |--Sinornithosaurus
   `--+--Deinonychus
      |--Dromaeosaurus
      |--Saurornitholestes
      `--Velociraptor

_Unenlagia_ I think should be kept as _Eumaniraptora_ incertae sedis for now,
until a consensus settles.

> You separate *Archaeopteryx* and *Wellnhoferia*... but why not *Archaeornis*
> and *Jurapteryx*?

The type species of those genera are regarded as synonyms of _A.
lithographica_. I should probably look into this more, though. If only I had
Chiappe's volume here with me now -- is _siemensii_ distinguished from
_lithographica_ in it? If so, I might indeed recognize _Archaeornis_.

> Why is *Jinzhouornis* a confuciusornithid? What have I missed?

http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/2002Oct/msg00369.html

> BTW, maybe you should include undefined clade names -- although not in
> italics. :-) Would make reading easier, because lots of names are going to
> stay undefined for quite some time.

We'll see....

> *Sapeornis* points out the remaining problem of apomorphy-based definitions:
> it certainly is outside the node-based *Pygostylia*, but it could be inside
> the apomorphy-based *Avebrevicauda*. ... Maybe write *A.* in both possible
> places, and in a color, to indicate that the placement of that name is not
> sure.

My plan was to place apomorphy-based names only at (or, to be precise, just
above) the nodes which they are *known* for. So, when this gets translated into
a full cladogram, you'd see something like:

--+--Sapeornis
  `--Avebrevicauda
     `--Pygostylia
        |...
 
> I'm confident that *Jibeinia* is outside Ornithothoraces. But *Protopteryx*
> and *Longipteryx* could be Enantiornithes... my analysis has failed to find
> them elsewhere.

I could switch them to incertae sedis.

> In any case *P.* is more basal than *L.* (even when, as it
> happens in my analysis, the 7 sacrals of *P.* are a reversal). -- 
> *Eoenantiornis* could have 2 separate phalanges per 3rd finger, like *P.*,
> *L.* and *Eocathayornis*... which you forgot. :-)

Whoops! Added.
 
> *Liaoningornis* is _incertae sedis_.

Whoops.

> I'm confident that *Avisauridae* is real.

Well, it's in there.

> I'm also confident that
> *Cuspirostrisornis** is either a member or a very close relative.
> *Concornis*, probably *Enantiornis* and apparently *Eoalulavis* are close
> relatives, too. *Sinornis* appears to be close, even though its rather big
> toe claws were not in my matrix.

Those are actually all compatible with the cladogram I show, with all its
incertae sedis and polytomies.
 
> * In my matrix *C.* differs from *Neuquenornis* only in the position of its
> question marks.

Uh, which _C._?

> *Lectavis* may not even be enantiornithine.
Heh -- sometimes it seems everything but _Enantiornis_ may not be
enantiornithean....

> *Nanantius* is Ornithothoraces incertae sedis -- it could be a derived
> enantiornithine, or related to *Apsaravis*, or who knows.

So many opinions -- someone needs to do an expansive, published analysis of all
non-ornithuran pygostylians.

> There are 2 definitions for *Ornithuromorpha*... following one (in a figure
> caption, 2001) *Vorona* is one, following the other (in the main text, 2002)
> it isn't.

I'll probably go with the earlier one for now.

> *Yixianornis* has a few derived characters that *Yanornis* AFAIK lacks.
> Namely, it has a small extensor process on mc I, a shorter thumb, the tip of
> its pygostyle appears to be upturned a bit, and the tip of its pmx is
> toothless; the latter 2 characters are not in my analysis.

I'll await Mickey's response....

> Separate *Ornithurae* _sensu stricto_ (Gauthier & de Queiroz 2001; includes
> *Apsaravis* and maybe *Yixianornis*) and _sensu strictissimo_ (node-based).
> :-) -- Is *O.* _sensu medio_ defined?

_sensu medio_ is Gauthier & de Queiroz 2001 -- I was under the impression that
it was roughly equivalent to _Avebrevicauda_.

> Where is *Carinatae* _sensu lato_?

Good question -- even Gauthier and de Queiroz 2002 didn't give a solid answer
on that, as I recall.

> *Palintropus* could be a pangalliform, according to Hope's chapter in
> Mesozoic Birds.

Incidently, I think I made up the terms "Pangalliformes" and "Pananseriformes"
based on faulty memory of Gauthier & de Queiroz 2002.
I *do* have it as a "pangalliform" -- but also questionably as a
quercymegapodiid.

> What is *Omorhamphus*? I only know *Diatryma*...

I'm curious, myself:
http://www.fmnh.helsinki.fi/users/haaramo/Metazoa/Deuterostoma/Chordata/Archosauria/Aves/Diatrymiformes.htm
 
> Where does your phylogeny of *Neoaves* come from?

Primarily Livezey & Zusi 2001. Instead of trying to forge a compromise between
all the different stuff out there, I decided to go with the most recent and
broad study. This is not my area, though, so....
 
> What does *Opisthocomidae* do between all those traditional gruiforms? It's
> the sistergroup of *Musophagidae* (turacos). -- And it's *Opisthocom_us_*.

Whoops -- I knew that... I swear....
I'll add a "?".
 
> What about the molecular results that find flamingos and grebes as
> sistergroups?

Well, they're still pretty close.
With neornithean phylogeny, you just can't please everyone!
Although I could do a trichtomy of Phoenicopteridae, Podicipedidae, and
(Gaviidae + (Spheniscidae + Procellariiformes))....

=====
=====> T. Michael Keesey <keesey@bigfoot.com>
=====> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
=====> BloodySteak <http://bloodysteak.com>
=====> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
=====

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com