Re: (Paleognath monophyly)

["Nick Gardner" <paleo_otaku95@eudoramail.com>]

---John Pourtless wrote:
>I accidentally sent my response before it was completed,
> so disregard the duplicate of this message.  At any rate, 
>the characters advanced by Cracraft & Clarke (2001) are as 
> dubious as any others advanced in defense of paleognath 
>holophyly.  The posteriorly forked dentary is apparently
> present in Confuciusornithidae, and the remaining traits 
> are all as explicable within the framework of neoteny as 
> they are within that advanced by Cracraft 
>and Clarke in their study.

I mean no offense, but considering the relatively basal position of 
Confuciusornithids within Aves relative to Palaeognathae, the presence of a 
posteriorly forked dentary in confuciusornithids seems no more relevant to the 
monophyly/paraphyly/polyphyly of Palaeognathae, than the presence of said 
feature in oviraptorids.

Sincerely

Nicholas Gardner
aim s/n Eoraptor22


Need a new email address that people can remember
Check out the new EudoraMail at
http://www.eudoramail.com