From: fredericus ruhe <fredruhe@xs4all.nl>
Reply-To: fredruhe@xs4all.nl
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: palaeognaths (NEORNITHINE PHYLOGENY)
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 04:40:34 +0200 (CEST)
Dear Ken,
I do not agree with your conclusions,
Sibly and Monroe, 1990 classified paleognaths as Parvclass Ratitae,
including the orders Struthioniformes and Tinamiformes, indicating a close
relationship between those taxa of palaeognaths, and that agrees with your
division.
But there are still the Lithornithiformes Houde 1986. to be considered,
volant, small, palaeognath's, probebly close to Tinamiformes, but old
enough
to be the "father of" both Struthioniformes and Tinamiformes. I think
Palaeognathae are monophyletic, I think Ratitae are paraphyletic, I don't
think it matters. I think volant Lithornithiform-stock gave rise to both
Tinamiform stock and to (volant) Struthioniform stock, which in the
teriairy
spread to the leftovers of Gondwana. In New Zealand there were two
invasions: one led to the Dinornithiformes (Dinornithi, whatever you like),
and the other to Apterygiformes (Apterygi), In Australia they gave rise to
the Dinornithiformes (Dinornithi), in Asia, Europe and Africa you'll find
the Struthioniformes (the Aephiotnirhiformes from Madagascar might be their
offspring)(Struthioni), and maybe the Palaeocene Remiornithiformes, and two
invasions in South-America, one leading to the Tinamiformes and one leading
to the Rheiformes (Rhei). The key-element in this all is the order
Lithornithiformes, they are from the Palaeocene of North-America as well as
Europe, volant, and could have given rise to both Tinamiformes and
Struthioniformes. All those birds became secondary flightless. (Sorry, I
don't care how you've coded those birds, my opinion on cladisticts is
known,
but if you want to code, please be complete, include the
Lithornithiformes).
Fred Ruhe
At 03:35 26-07-2001, you wrote:
> I agree. Therefore in 1994, I classified paleognaths in two
separate
>orders (one for tinamous and the other for ratites). Of course, Order
>Tinamiformes was coded as a paraphyletic group giving rise to a single
order
>of ratites.
> However, it would not surprise me if ratites may have arisen from
>tinamous more than once in two or more distinct clades (and polyphyly is
>unacceptable if proven). If this turns out to be the case, I will have
to
>either (1) recognize more than one order of ratites; or (2) combine all
>paleognaths into one order and show their more complicated relationships
>with coding at the family level within that one order.
> But for now, given the uncertainties, I continue to recognize the
two
>separate orders, one for tinamous and the other for ratites
(traditionally
>considered a holophyletic group).
> -----Ken
>******************************************
>>From: Vorompatra@aol.com
>>Reply-To: Vorompatra@aol.com
>>To: ELurio@aol.com, dinosaur@usc.edu
>>Subject: Re: NEORNITHINE PHYLOGENY etc / Gondwanan groups
>>Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 22:43:55 EDT
>>
>>In a message dated 7/25/2001 7:39:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>>ELurio@aol.com
>>writes:
>>
>><< The reason that timinus aren't considered ratites by many workers is
>>that
>> they CAN fly. Dictionary abuse strikes again!!! >>
>>
>>I cannot recall a reference which actually calls tinamous, ratites. As
you
>>noted, they are united as Paleognathus birds. I'm no expert on tinamou
>>skeletons, but since they CAN fly (albeit weakly, I've read) they must
have
>>some sort of keeled sternum, which would not "work" for a ratite
>>(literally,
>>anyway, since the word derives from Latin for "raft" and is intended to
>>imply
>>a lack of keel). IIRC, there are 43 tinamou species, compared to 10
extant
>>ratites.
>>
>>Chip
>>
>>www.geocities.com/vorompatra
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
>
>