[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
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
Add a Yahoo! contact to Windows Live Messenger for a chance to win a free
- Re: Sheesh
- From: "T. Michael Keesey" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- RE: Sheesh
- From: evelyn sobielski <email@example.com>