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

RE: Sheesh



Evelyn Sobielski wrote:

At least until the full fallout of Mayr et al's study of the Thermopolis Archie has settled in. I'd rather
like to see Confuciusornis removed from Aves sensu stricto than Deinonychus included in it...

This depends on what phylogenetic definition you use for Aves, rather than any aesthetic choice.


The definition I use is the node-based clade that includes _Archaeopteryx_ and modern birds. Following Mayr et al's cladogram, _Deinonychus_ and _Confuciusornis_ might both be in Aves. However, Mayr et al. did not include any modern birds in their analysis (just three basal taxa), so this is impossible to ascertain.

As I said previously, including some non-basal avian taxa in the analysis may have produced a *very* different-looking tree. I doubt if Mayr et al's tree is the final word on the affinities of _Rahonavis_ and/or _Confuciusornis_.

Cheers

Tim

_________________________________________________________________
Add a Yahoo! contact to Windows Live Messenger for a chance to win a free trip! http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/yahoo/default.aspx?locale=en-us&hmtagline