[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Mesozoic roots of parrots and passerine birds
--- Jaime Headden <firstname.lastname@example.org> schrieb am Sa, 27.8.2011:
> Von: Jaime Headden <email@example.com>
> Betreff: RE: Mesozoic roots of parrots and passerine birds
> An: "Augusto Haro" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
> Datum: Samstag, 27. August, 2011 08:40 Uhr
> Dyke, Clarke and a few others have effectively argued
> that the material does not resemble any modern psittaciform
> mandible, and as Dyke and Mayr have argued, does not
> resemble that of Paleogene or Neogene psittaciform fossils.
> It is then considerably unlikely to be a parrot. I comment
> futher here: http://qilong.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/a-cretaceous-parrot/
> . It may still be avian, however, and I specifically do not
> take this argument because of a limited level of comparison.
> It is, in any case, psittaco-morphic (having the shape of a
> parrot) but this is a generalization based on the rounded of
> the rostral margin, fusion, and the shape of neurovascular
> canals both within and upon the symphysis.
To add to that, all known Paleogene stem psittaciforms are by no means as
advanced (one of the most severely under-cited papers, at least regarding the
present debate - the molecular studies have simply pretended it does not exist,
or cited and then entirely disregarded it:
In other words, this "gnathos" is a bit too "kainos" to be a good parrot
Note also http://www.jstor.org/pss/1298656
Given that there are (IIRC) still no oviraptorosaurs - let alone
caenagnath(o)ids - from the Lance, and that the caenagnathid hypodigm is very
small, a cladistic restudy of the material is definitely very warranted.
PS: if anyone needs the two papers mentioned, I have them.