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

RE: [...] Archaeopteryx 10

Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. wrote:

For what it is worth, should _A. siemensii_ be considered a distinct genus, it reverts to good old _Archaeornis_

I would rate this as a definite possibility - if the two species are indeed separate. As discussed in previous threads, most of _Archaeopteryx_'s characters are primitive (plesiomorphic) for Aves. Thus, if the two species (_lithographica_ and _siemensi_) are distinct, _Archaeopteryx_ may emerge as paraphyletic in a cladistic analysis. Thus, each species would warrant its own genus, and _Archaeornis_ is available for _siemensi_.

This could lead to fun and games if _Archaeornis_ is below _Archaeopteryx_ in the cladogram. Under this scenario, _Archaeopteryx_ would be included in Aves, but _Archaeornis_ would not (at least under the most commonly used definition, according to which Aves has _Archaeopteryx_ as its most basal taxon).



FREE online classifieds from Windows Live Expo ? buy and sell with people you know http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwex0010000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://expo.live.com?s_cid=Hotmail_tagline_12/06