Re: palaeognaths (NEORNITHINE PHYLOGENY)

[fredericus ruhe <fredruhe@xs4all.nl>]

According to Peter F. Murray & Dirk Megirian, 1998,
The Skull of Dromornithid Birds: Anatomical Evidence for Their Relationship
to Anseriformes 
Records of the South Australian Museum 31: 51-97
they are close to or even a member of Anseriformes, and not related to Ratitae.

Fred Ruhe

At 22:27 27-07-2001, you wrote:
>
>Fred,
>     Perhaps it will ease your mind a little to learn that I included 
>Lithornithidae within Tinamiformes.  Here is the paleognath clade:
>  7  Tinamiformes (incl. Lithornithiformes)
>          (= Dromaeognathae)
>_a_ Struthioniformes (= Ratitae)
>
>      Whether Lithornithids gave rise to tinamous and ratites independently, 
>or if they gave rise to a tinamou-ratite clade, either way, a paraphyletic 
>Tinamiformes (sensu lato; incl. lithornithids) clearly gave rise to the 
>ratites.  Therefore, the question in my mind is if they gave rise to a 
>single clade of ratites as I have it now coded (or two or more separate 
>independent ratite clades---in which case more than one ratite order may be 
>needed).
>                    ------Ken
>P.S.  The idea that Lithornithids are the sister group to all Neornithes is 
>very recent, and I agree with Mickey that it has not been adequately tested. 
>  And I certainly have no intention of taking Lithornithidae out of 
>Tinamiformes until a more complete cladistic analysis (of euornithines) is 
>performed and verifies that this should be done.  Should be interesting to 
>see exactly where Dromornithidae ends up as well.
>*******************************************
>
>>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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
>
>