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

Re: The Papers That Ate Cincinnati

Seems to me that the best solution would to not use Aves at all. It's a common name in some languages, and the rather narrow constraints of phylogenetic nomenclature aren't suited to capturing what is meant by "bird". Even if we could find a precise definition of bird such as "the first feathered animal leading to modern birds that achieved powered flight, and all it's descendents"; what would that be under the phylocode? An _event_ based clade? No, I say chuck out aves, and use Ornithes for ((Passer domesticus)-(Velociraptor mongoliensis, Oviraptor mongoliensis, Segnosaurus galbinensis, etc.)) instead.

T. Michael Keesey wrote:
On 5/4/07, Mike Taylor <mike@indexdata.com> wrote:

For whatever very little it might be worth, my own position is that the "traditional" understanding of birds is that _Archaeopteryx_ is the most primitive animal that is defined to be a bird; and so the node-based definition of Chiappe best captures this notion, so that Aves = (_Archaeopteryx_ + modern birds).

I think Marjanovic's proposed definition (see http://www.phylonames.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19&start=25) covers traditional usage far better, since _Archaeopteryx_ has not always been an essential member, but dromaeosaurids, troodontids, etc. have generally been essential *non-members*.

Still, I prefer the crown group definition for reasons stated here:
(And also stated at more length by Gauthier and de Queiroz, 2001.)

As discussed on that forum (and years ago on this forum), perhaps it
would be wise to coin a new name, "Ornithes" (shockingly unused to
date), for one of the definitions.

 But I know that lots of
people have other ideas, and I deliberately didn't adopt a position on
that question in the paper because I didn't want to get bogged down
in what is from my perspective a side-issue.  (After all,
_Archaeopteryx_ weighed WAAAY less than ten tons.)

Heh heh.