[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
AW: Funny New Papers
--- Jerry D. Harris <email@example.com> schrieb am Di, 4.8.2009:
> Von: Jerry D. Harris <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Betreff: Funny New Papers
Mayr has another one out, this time it's funny feet:
"Notes on the osteology and phylogenetic affinities of the Oligocene
Diomedeoididae (Aves, Procellariiformes)
Fossil Record Volume 12 Issue 2, Pages 133 - 140 doi:10.1002/mmng.200900003
New specimens of the procellariiform taxon Diomedeoididae are reported from the
early Oligocene (Rupelian) deposits of Wiesloch-Frauenweiler in southern
Germany. Two skeletons belong to Diomedeoides brodkorbi, whereas isolated legs
of larger individuals are tentatively assigned to D. lipsiensis, a species
which has not yet been reported from the locality. The fossils allow the
recognition of some previously unknown osteological features of the
Diomedeoididae, including the presence of a vestige of the hallux.
Diomedeoidids are characterized by extremely wide phalanges of the third and
fourth toes, which also occur in some species of the extant procellariiform
Oceanitinae (southern storm-petrels). The poorly developed processus
supracondylaris dorsalis of the humerus supports a position of these Oligocene
tubenoses outside a clade including the Diomedeidae (albatrosses),
Procellariidae (shearwaters and allies), and Pelecanoididae (diving-petrels).
hypothesized that like modern Oceanitinae, which have an equally short
supracondylar process, diomedeoidids probably employed flap-gliding and used
their immersed feet to remain stationary."
Hmmmm... I wonder if he says anything about _Primodroma bournei_, yet another
London Clay taxon of Harrison and Walker. It happens to be just a distal
humerus fragment - but it is "storm-petrel-like".
Not having seen the paper yet, I presume Mayr does say something about the
monophyly or nonmonophyly of diomedeoidids+hydrobatids (s.l.) and
diomedeoidids+oceanitids (as in "hydrobatids s.str."). It would be relevant for
flight mode evolution in the tubenoses.
For a cladistic look at that question, it is probably better to make two runs -
one with limb characters and one without - and compare the outcomes. If the
actual evolutionary scenario was NOT "diomedeoidids+oceanitids are monophyletic
to the exclusion of hydrobatids s.str., and 'wave-paddling' evolved only once
in tubenoses and never reverted", the amount of limb characters vs other
characters scorable from the material is still liable to swamp the analysis