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

Re: Density of intraclade sampling (was: More evidence for Eufalconimorphae and Psittacopasserae)

Alexander Suh <asuh@uni-muenster.de> wrote:

> ;-) But wouldn't it be equally unfair to neglect that (considering fossil taxa
> such as Messelasturidae and the current consensus topology of "landbirds") it
> is quite plausible (and parsimonious) to assume that parrots + passerines
> evolved from a raptorial ancestor (one that they share with Falconidae)? :-)

True, but still... It would be quite a stretch to use the name
"Passerimorphae" for the clade in question (Sibley et al. [1988]
proposed it for a clade comprising Passeriformes, Gruiformes,
Ciconiiformes, and Columbiformes), but at least it would be consistent
with the way the name has been applied later -- which seems to be
something like "passerines and two or three 'orders' most closely
related to them". Falconimorphae has no tradition at all -- it was
erected by Livezey and Zusi (2007) and, AFAIK, never used again.

David Černý