[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Walk The New Papers
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 1:51 PM, evelyn sobielski <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> They seem to define Ornithurae in some way that
> includes _Apsaravis_, but I cannot find such a
> definition in Sereno's list (there does not seem to be
> any agreement on what Ornithurae *is*, but no
> definition would, according to the phylogeny here,
> seem to include _A. ukhaana_, which is quite robustly
> just outside the _Hesperornis_-Neornithes clade).
Sereno's preferred definition is extremely inclusive: "The most
inclusive clade containing _Passer domesticus_ (Linnaeus 1758) but not
_Archaeopteryx lithographica_ Meyer 1861." This is similar to
Gauthier's (1986) original phylogenetic definition.
Gauthier and de Queiroz (2001) also had a fairly inclusive definition:
"The clade stemming from the first panavian with a 'bird tail,'
namely, a tail that is shorter than the femur ... with a pygostyle of
avian aspect ... that is homologous with that of _Aves_ (_Vultur
gryphus_ Linnaeus 1758)." (Trimmed for brevity.)
_Apsaravis_ would be considered a part of _Ornithurae_ under either of
T. Michael Keesey
Director of Technology
2894 Rowena Avenue Ste. B
Los Angeles, California 90039