[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Several New Papers
Evelyn Sobielski wrote:
4 seem to be good in any case - Galloanseres, Charadriiformes, "higher
waterbirds" and "higher
landbirds". In fact, these 4 seem to be as definite and rock-solid as
anyone could tell at present.
Well, the exclusion of Anseriformes and Galliformes from Neoaves is well
supported on both molecular and morphological grounds. But the cladistic
analysis of Bourdon (2005) found that the inclusion of odontopterygiforms
broke up Galloanserae in favor of an Odontopterygiformes+Anseriformes clade
(Odontoanserae). It'll be intereresting to see what effect other putative
basal neognaths have on the Galloanserae (dromornithids, bathornithids).
Asiahesperornis is not really exciting. Maastrichtian hesperornithiforms
are not of much use
phylogenetically as of now.
Nevertheless, it was nice of Dyke &c to confirm that it is indeed a
Mickey Mortimer wrote:
Wasn't that what Ericson et al.'s analysis was?
Both Metaves and Coronaves received a posterior probability value of 95% or
more, as did many of the ingroups. 95% certainly sounds impressive.
However, Ericson &c performed a Bayesian analysis, and posterior
probabilities tend to be inflated relative to the respective bootstrap
values. I'm a little skeptical of their topology too, including the
Fixing up the home? Live Search can help