RE: New Chinese Early Cretaceous bird taxa...

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Michael Mortimer wrote:

> Yandangornis' description is said to show "no diagnosis of birds", thus the 
> authors ignore it.  At least it's finally mentioned again in the 
> literature.

Small consolation.

> No reason is given for sinking Jixiangornis into Shenzhouraptor/Jeholornis, 
> so while I view this as possibly correct, I don't think the synonymy should 
> be viewed as secure yet.

Interestingly, the authors also assert that _Jeholornis_ has priority over 
_Shenzhouraptor_, because the two genera were named in the same month, and 
_Jeholornis_ was published in a weekly journal (Nature), but 
_Shenzhouraptor_ was published in a monthly journal (Chinese Geological 
Science Bulletin).  Zhou and Zhang claim this is "according to international 
nomenclature rule".  I'll have a look at the ICZN rules, and see if they're 
on to something.

> Among the taxonomic/phylogenetic problems- Confuciusornis suniae is 
> presented as a valid species, Jibeinia is a protopterygid, Cathayornis and 
> Sinornis are kept separate, Liaoxiornis is kept in its own order, and 
> Chaoyangia is still placed in Ornithurae sensu BAND.

Also, in Table 1, _Gansus_ is put in the family "Gansuiornithidae" and order 
"Gansuiornithiformes".  Similarly, _Chaoyangia_ and _Songlingornis_ are put 
in the family "Chaoyangornithidae" and order "Chaoyangithiformes".  These 
horrible improperly formed orders and families are also mentioned in the 
text.  Surely, "Gansuiornithidae" and "Chaoyangornithidae" are invalid under 
ICZN rules - especially since Gansuidae and Chaoyangidae are already named.

Cheers

Tim