[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Parahongshanornis, new Chinese Cretaceous bird (free pdf)
Mickey Mortimer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Note that many basal ornithuromorphs have short ulnae,
As do many basal neornitheans. As noted by Nudds et al. (2004), the
retention of short ulnae (giving a humerus/ulna ratio > 1) is
primitive for Neornithes. Palaeognathous and galloanserean birds
typically have an ulna shorter than the humerus. Certain flighted
anseriform birds have a humerus/ulna ratio similar to that of the
definitely-flightless _Patagopteryx_ (~1.10-1.16) and the
possibly-flightless _Elsornis_ (1.16). Although most 'higher' birds
(Neoaves) have a humerus/ulna ratio < 1, certain members reverted to >
1 (e.g., members of Gaviiformes, Gruiformes, Cuculiformes,
> which is not surprising given Cau's analysis that found Parahongshanornis
> isn't a hongshanornithid- http://theropoda.blogspot.com/2011/05
> /parahongshanornis-e-un.html . You'd think people would learn not to attach
> their untested phylogenetic hypotheses to names.
Or even their tested phylogenetic hypotheses, given how frequently
taxa shift from their original phylogenetic position.
> Paraprotopteryx, Parascaniornis, Protarchaeopteryx...
Also _Pararhabdodon_, now regarded as a lambeosaurine hadrosaur - not
at all close to _Rhabdodon_ (phylogenetically speaking). And
_Proceratosaurus_, a basal tyrannosaur, far removed from
At least _Parahesperornis_ appears to be closely related to
_Hesperornis_.... But that doesn't excuse the moniker
_Parahesperornis_, which is still an unforgivably boring name - as bad
as _Pseudolagosuchus_ or _Neoaetosauroides_.