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

RE: Archeopteryx clade

--- Yasmani Ceballos Izquierdo
<yceballos@estudiantes.uci.cu> schrieb:

> Somebody can help me with a Archeopteryx clade?


Anything closer to Archie than to:
* _Eoconfuciusornis_
* _Epidendrosaurus_/_Scansoriopteryx_
* _Omnivoropteryx_/_Sapeornis_
* _Iberomesornis_
* _Gansus_
and perhaps _Jeholornis_ (or _Shenzhouraptor_ - has
this been worked out yet?) and as many of the
about-as-birdlike-as-Archie taxa from Early Cretaceous

_Rahonavis_ would probably not need to be used, but
may be if you want to be 150% sure.

(Its "birdy" position in the _Eoconfuciusornis_
cladogram would seem to be due to the lack of
unenlagiines in the analysis)

Of course, such a clade would contain just the Archie
specimens - i.e. including _Jurapteryx_,
_Wellnhoferia_ etc. While the case for the latter is
half-solid by now IIRC, the juvenile hypothesis still
needs to be cleared up before the former is

There are two or so teeth (from France and/or Spain I
think), about as many scraps of bone (France and/or
Spain, and possibly Romania), and *perhaps* the
Solnhofen feather[*] which could/would go in the
Archie clade too. But that is about it -
Archaeopterygidae and nothing else at the moment...
probably. "Probably" because depending on how you
define it, you might end up with some Chinese
"dino-bird" in there too, and that *might* eventually
invalidate it. Because for all we know at present,
only Ornithothoraces (clade or not) had the ability to
disperse across oceans - and that you'd have needed to
get from Solnhofen to Liaoning in the Late
Jurassic/Early Cretaceous.

Unfortunately, Sereno already defined
Archaeopterygidae in 2005 as:
"The most inclusive clade including Archaeopteryx
lithographica Meyer 1861 but not Passer domesticus
(Linnaeus 1758)."
Given that we know next to nothing about the branching
of the basalmost avians, such a definition is liable
to include any and all mesozoic birds except the
lineage leading to Neornithes, plus a number of
non-avians too. Biogeography gives some hope for
Sereno's definition not making the Archaeopterygidae
something it never was understood nor ever was
intended to mean, but the fossils to *prove* it simply
are not known at present, period.

Are there any Late Jurassic deposits on the E slopes
of the southern Urals?



[*] Though not necessarily from _Archaeopteryx
lithographica_, by now it is not very likely that it
was from something not closely related. 

Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail.
Mehr Möglichkeiten, in Kontakt zu bleiben. http://de.overview.mail.yahoo.com