Re: Dinosauricon Phylogeny: in progress

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> Not starting up this debate again... :-) 
 
You started youstartedyouuu... :-] 
 
> > > Rahonavis has been placed closer to neornithines than Archaeopteryx 
> > > in all modern analyses (Clarke et al., Chiappe). 
> > 
> > That's probably an artifact of leaving out *Sapeornis* and 
> > *Shenzhouraptor*. For example, the fibula of *Sapeornis* still reaches 
> > the tarsus, while those of *Rahonavis*, *Shenzhouraptor* and 
> > Pygostylia do not... 
> 
> Don't see how that character contradicts the topology (Arch (Rahon, 
> Neorn)). 
 
Well, what I wrote doesn't, but the characters used to hold *Rahonavis* 
and Avebrevicauda together, exclusive of Archie, have a different 
distribution. More when my analysis is finished... I hope I can start the 
calculation still today. 
 
> Rahonavis looks closest to Shenzhouraptor 
 
Of course. 
 
> But Ornithuromorpha is defined as including Vorona. 
 
No, according to the chapter by Chiappe in Mesozoic Birds: "a clade 
defined here as the [sic] common ancestor of *Patagopteryx* and 
Ornithurae, and all its descendants". Of course, in that analysis *Vorona* 
forms a trichotomy with *P.* and Ornithurae. 
 
> Some of Clarke's (2002) analyses place Vorona as an enantiornithine, 
 
No wonder. But IMHO unlikely. 
 
> And since Euornithes is defined as everything closer to neornithines 
> than to Sinornis, it could include taxa like Gobipteryx and Enantiornis 
> if Enantiornithes is paraphyletic. 
 
Yes. 
 
> BTW, Vorona's fifth metatarsal has to be a reversal if you take its 
> absence in Longipteryx, Jibeinia and enantiornithines into account. 
 
Hmm... are they absent, or not preserved, or preserved on the unprepared 
ventral side??? For such a character, I favor multiple independent losses 
over a reversal any time. 
 
> Finally got a hard copy of Kurochkin (1999), so I can answer questions 
> about this if needed. 
 
Great! :-9 What does the scapula-coracoid articulation of *O.* look like? 
 
> > What happened to *I. victor*? Isn't it the type? 
> 
> No.  I. dispar is the type, and I. victor is a junior synonym (Clarke, 
> 2002). 
 
Oops. I forgot. 
 
> > >                      |--Gansus 
> > 
> > Why so high up? 
> 
> Based on Clarke (2002), who placed it above Ichthyornis based on a 
> non-ginglymoid metatarsal II (highly homoplasic). 
 
Ah. Don't have that in my matrix. 

-- 
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more  http://www.gmx.net +++
Bitte lächeln! Fotogalerie online mit GMX ohne eigene Homepage!