[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Applying Sereno's definitions to Neotetanurae: Part 2
Mickey Mortimer wrote:
Mononykus olecranus + Passer domesticus, - Dromaeosaurus albertensis
Chiappe and Calvo, 1994 + Norell et al., 1996 + Zhang and Zhou, 2000;
Chiappe 2001 and 2002; Lu et al., 2002; Maryanska et al., 2002
Mickey, I agreed with every one of your ideas... until I came to this one.
:-) I agree with Sereno that Metornithes is a bad idea. The name
Metornithes was originally erected to include all birds above
_Archaeopteryx_, at a time when _Mononykus_ was thought to be a bird. Perle
et al. (1993) vaguely defined Metornithes as ?a group within Avialae not
including Archaeopteryx?, with _Mononykus_ as its most basal member. Thus,
Metornithes was originally intended to be a clade of birds - and the name
'Metornithes' reflects that intent. Given that alvarezsaurids are now
rarely (if ever) recovered as birds, we should probably let Metornithes go.
Mickey's definition is more in keeping with the later use of Metornithes
(e.g., Chiappe ), as a clade that is anchored on _Mononykus_ and is
therefore more inclusive than Aves or Avialae.
Sereno's arguments for abandoning Metornithes are convincing, IMHO.
(Ornithurae sensu Chiappe)
Hesperornis regalis + Passer domesticus
Chiappe and Calvo, 1994 and modifications; Hou et al., 1996; Chatterjee,
1999; Chiappe, 2001 and 2002; Norell and Clarke, 2001 and modifications;