Re: NEORNITHINE PHYLOGENY etc / Gondwanan groups

["João S. Lopes Filho" <jodan99@uol.com.br>]

So, if Neornithes came from Southern Hemisphere, we must expect:
1) a Gondwanan basal group, with a first splite between an African and a
Neogondwanan branch (S.America+Antarctica+Australia+Indomadagascar)
2) From South America, a Late Cretaceous branch reaching North America (in
Ratites, this can be the wasy of Palaeotis group; in Galloanserae, the
oldest North American galliformes and perhaps the Diatryma); from India, a
Late Cretaceous/Paleocene branch reaching Asia (in Ratites, the ostrich
group - unless they came from Africa). From Madagascar, a branch reaching
Africa. The branch in Asia could reach Europe and Africa (cf. Primates and
Hystrichognathi Rodentia).
This could provide a good explanation for the presence of Pantodonta in
Asiamerican and South America Paleocene and Australia Eocene (of Tingamarra
is in such group), without Cretaceous members in Asia or America.
3) Australian groups could reach Asia through Indonesia in the...Oligocene?
Eocene?
4) The Afrotheria included elephants, sirenians, hyraxes, elephant-shrews,
tenrecs, golden moles, aardvarks. There's no carnivorous group in such
clade. Who were the Africa meat-eating mammals before the arriving of
Carnivora? Hyaenodonta?

A good way to determinate the correct geographical connexions are the
amphibians, because they can't travel across salt water.

Joao S.Lopes
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil


----- Original Message -----
From: <darren.naish@port.ac.uk>
To: <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Cc: <gdyke@amnh.org>; <m_troutman@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 12:19 PM
Subject: NEORNITHINE PHYLOGENY etc


> The following just in. Some of them pretty important from my biased
> perspective.
>
> Gardner, J. D. 2001. Monophyly and affinities of albanerpetonid
> amphibians (Temnospondyli; Lissamphibia). _Zoological J. Linnean
> Society_ 131, 309-352.
>
> Latest in a series of papers resulting from Gardner's phd work. This
> paper definitively refutes arguments that albanerpetonids are caudates
> and provides much support for the view that they are the sister-taxon to
> Caudata + Salientia. Use of 'Temnospondyli' here is a reference to
> Temnospondyli sensu Gauthier et al., obviously. Lot of stuff on cranial
> features in albanerpetonids indicative of a shearing bite; also
> adaptations for burrowing.
>
> Galis, F. 2001. Digit identity and digit number: indirect support for the
> descent of birds from theropod dinosaurs. _Trends in Ecology and
> Evolution_ 16, 16.
>
> It would seem a little debate on digit homology has been going on in
> the pages of TREE, and this is the article that started it all.
> Drossopoulou et al. (2000, _Development_ 127: 1337-1348) showed
> that manipulation of the Sonic hedgehog gene resulted in embryos with
> the same number of digits BUT with different digit identities. Inspired,
> Galis suggested that this offered support for Wagner and Gauthier's
> model of homeotic change producing the conflict in avian digit
> identities. Galis' article prompted the response....
>
> Feduccia, A. 2001. Digit homology of birds and dinosaurs:
> accommodating the cladogram. _TREE_ 16, 285-6.
>
> Feduccia basically restated the evidence presented in Burke and
> Feduccia (1997) that the first digit to condense along the primary axis
> MUST be digit IV. While Drossopoulou et al. showed that a homeotic
> shift *could* occur, the point, according to Feduccia, is: 'whether it
> did occur'. Feduccia goes on to argue that palaeontologists are
> distorting things in order to 'accomodate the cladogram'. Feduccia's
> article prompted the response....
>
> Galis, F. 2001. Digit homology of birds and dinosaurs: accomodating
> the cladogram. Response to Feduccia. _TREE_ 16, 286.
>
> To cut a long story short, evidence from the embryology of extant birds
> indicates that a homeotic change in digit identity >did< occur: Galis
> cites multiple studies which, it is argued, support this view. I can't do
> this case justice without going into intricate detail, and I'm not about
> to do that.
>
> Carrano, M. T. 2001. Implications of limb bone scaling, curvature and
> eccentricity in mammals and non-avian dinosaurs. _J. Zoology_ 254,
> 41-55.
>
> A lot of stuff here, highlighting both differences and similarities seen
> between mammal and dinosaur limb bones.
>
> Haddrath, O. and Baker, A. J. 2001. Complete mitochondrial DNA
> genome sequences of extinct virds: ratite phylogenetics and the
> vicariance biogeography hypothesis. _Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B_ 268,
> 939-945.
>
> Analysis of the data, which includes DNA sequences from two moa
> species, supports ratite monophyly and a basal position for moa (but,
> as is virtually always the case for DNA studies, with kiwis grouping
> with casuariforms and not with moa). In terms of biogeography, this
> result means that both kiwis and ostriches diverged too recently for
> their distributions to be explained by vicariance (but read the paper,
> there is more to it than this).
>
> Cracraft, J. 2001. Avian evolution, Gondwana biogeography and the
> Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction event. _Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B_
> 268, 459-469.
>
> This paper is a must-have for those interested in Gondwanan origins of
> neornithines, or in the interrelations of neornithines. Analysis and
> collation of phylogenetic data for neornithines indicate a strong trans-
> Antarctic distribution for basal members of all neornithine clades:
> Cracraft looked at palaeognaths (all 8 analysed clades likely trans-
> Antarctic), galloanseraens (all 7 analysed clades except anatids likely
> trans-Antarctic), gruiforms (all 13 analysed clades except turnicids,
> otidids, gruids and rallids likely trans-Antarctic), caprimulgiforms and
> apodiforms (all 7 analysed clades except caprimulgids and apodids
> likely trans-Antarctic) and passerines (all 7 analysed clades except
> passeridans likely trans-Antarctic). Thus there is a strong trans-
> Antarctic signal for neornithines.
>
> Cracraft takes issue with claims of northern origin for some taxa (e.g.,
> steatornithids and podargids) restricted today to the south, many of
> them made by Olson and Feduccia. The data also indicates that
> neornithine diversification was underway before the end of the
> Cretaceous, thus Cracraft agrees with, e.g., Cooper and Penny's results
> and not with Feduccia's post-KT explosion model (the 'Tertiary
> radiation hypothesis'). Aspects of the neornithine tree favoured by
> Feduccia and Olson (e.g., presbyornithids as transitional between
> anseriforms, charadriiforms and phoenicopteriforms) are also rejected
> and there are a few stabs at Feduccia and co for rejecting cladistic
> analysis when it does not support a favoured view on relationships. It
> always strikes me that, whereas many people interested in non-avian
> dinosaurs know much about Feduccia and Olson's claims regarding
> bird ancestry, few are aware that these workers also maintain very
> controversial viewpoints on the phylogeny of neornithines, the areas in
> which they do at least have great first hand experience. This paper is
> thus a definitive response to claims made by Feduccia and co in recent
> works. Cracraft cites as in press the following...
>
> Cracraft, J. and Clarke, J. 2001. The basal clades of modern birds.
> _Bull. Peabody Mus. Yale Univ._.
>
> I look fwd to it.
>
> DARREN NAISH
> PALAEOBIOLOGY RESEARCH GROUP
> School of Earth & Environmental Sciences
> UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH
> Burnaby Building
> Burnaby Road                           email: darren.naish@port.ac.uk
> Portsmouth UK                          tel (mobile): 0776 1372651
> P01 3QL                                tel (office): 023 92842244
>                                        www.palaeobiology.co.uk
>