Re: Cretaceous Duck Ruffles Feathers

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Mickey Mortimer wrote:

> > BBC story includes Alan Feduccia's comments.
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4187287.stm
>
> "This is a well known specimen which has been kicking around since 1992, 
> and
> it was originally described as belonging to an extinct group. And now all 
> of
> a sudden it's a modern duck."
>
> Wrong.  It was originally claimed to be a presbyornithid, but is now in an
> unresolved trichotomy with presbyornithids and anatids.  Thus, it's 
> position
> has only been made less precise, not changed to 'modern duck'.  Seems
> Feduccia can't even get his neornithine facts straight.

Dead right, Mickey.  In this topology, _Vegavis_ would be a member of both 
crown-group Anseriformes and grown-group Anatoidea.  Feduccia might also be 
a little sore that presbyornithids are no longer considered to be the "basal 
stock" from which other waterfowl and shorebirds originated.  
Presbyornithids are also crown-group anatoids.  Considering that the 
screamers (Anhimae) are terrestrial, it is an open question whether the 
first anseriforms (or "pananseriforms") were terrestrial or wading birds.

> [Feduccia:] "The analysis is based on very superficial features of bones, 
> so I find it
> unreliable."

When you have a species based on a fossilized skeleton... what other 
features can you use for phylogenetic analysis apart from "superficial 
features of bones"?  That's the entire foundation for classifying extinct 
tetrapods.



Tim