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

Re: Postorbital processes (& weighting??)

I never thought about Pygostylia being a synonym as well, but you are right. That's even scarier that Aves, Pygostylia, Ornithothoraces (and the kitchen sink?) could all be heterodefinitional synonyms (not to mention Feduccia's version of Ornithurae).
Not that I think Feduccia's phylogeny is very likely, but in my opinion it does show how splintered classifications can be confusing and also waste a lot of good names when they become future heterodefinitional synonyms (maybe not here, but elsewhere outside of vertebrates where the fossil record is very poor). In botany (where strict cladism is more unpopular and widely criticized), they are learning from such examples in vertebrate zoology that this is not the way they want to go.
If we used informal names like pygostylians, ornithothoraceans, etc., for all these intermediate taxa, it wouldn't clog up the nomenclatural system so badly. And even Keesey doesn't list Metornithes any more (if Dinosauricon ever did). My 1994 classification placed an Order Mononykiformes splitting off between Archaeopterygiformes and the enantiornithiform orders, but it never occurred to me that a formal intermediate taxon Metornithes was necessary. Coding works so much better, especially if the mononykiforms turn out to be more primitive than Archaeopterygiformes (which seems more likely than not). And all this is a cakewalk compared to basal coelurosaurs.
------ Ken
****************************************** 
From: "Mickey_Mortimer11" <Mickey_Mortimer11@email.msn.com>
Reply-To: Mickey_Mortimer11@email.msn.com
To: <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Subject: Re: Postorbital processes (& weighting??)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 20:13:19 -0800

Ken Kinman wrote-

>      Nope.  Feduccia, Martin, and colleagues recognize a holophyletic
> Sauriurae (which goes all the way back to Archaeopteryx).
>      According to their phylogeny, Aves would be a heterodefinitional
> synonym of Ornithothoraces (the latter would then be more inclusive than
> Pygostylia, not less).  So whether Ornithothoraces includes
> confuciusornithids (or not) depends entirely on whose phylogeny you are
> looking at.

No, Mike was correct. Even in Feduccia et al's (completely implausible,
based solely on misinterpretations and plesiomorphies, I'm aghast that some
papers still use it) phylogeny, Ornithothoraces is never more inclusive than
Pygostylia. Confuciusornithids are sauriurines in Feduccia's phylogeny,
making Aves, Ornithothoraces and Pygostylia all heterodefinitional synonyms.
Ornithothoraces excludes confuciusornithids in all plausible phylogenies, as
all evidence indicates Iberomesornis is closer to neornithines than
Confuciusornis is.

Mickey Mortimer



_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx