Re: New paper on Neoaves

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

>         |    `--[Caprimulgiformes]

No, because...

>    The names in square brackets are ones that weren't used in the
> paper but which I've included so I can use them in this e-mail. In
> particular, the clade I've labelled 'Anomalogonatae' is a little
> different from previous usage of this name, but still corresponds to
> the bulk of the Anomalogonatae minus the members that have been
> shifted to the Metaves plus Cuculidae + Musophagidae, so I feel it's
> still a pretty usable name for this clade.

...the fashion of naming hypotheses instead of clades has spread from the 
mammals to the amphibians ("The Amphibian Tree of Life", Frost and 18 more, 
AMN bulletin 2006) and to the birds as well. That is, the names are supposed 
to change any time there's any change in the contents of the taxon to which 
they apply. Mayr, at the very least, refuses to use Pelecaniformes and 
Caprimulgiformes because he has shown that their exact traditional contents 
don't each form a clade to the exclusion of everything else. Instead of 
saying "tropicbirds are not pelecaniforms", he says (paraphrasing from 
memory) "Pelecaniformes does not exist" or "the Pelecaniformes hypothesis 
has been falsified" and digs up the name Steganopodes for what a botanist 
would surely call "core Pelecaniformes". Caprimulgiformes contains 
Apodiformes -- in other words, Caprimulgiformes is paraphyletic, so its name 
must be destroyed, and Mayr has dug up Cypselomorphae.

I do agree that completely new concepts should come with a new name, so 
Reptilia should be trashed instead of being recycled for the name of a 
partially overlapping clade, but this can be exaggerated. It's about time 
for phylogenetic nomenclature.

> (Leptosomidae being especially welcome).

Oh yes. Anything only known from Madagascar and Messel has got to be 
interesting!

> Whether or not these two families form a monophyletic
> Cuculiformes is not resolved,

See? Cuculiformes is the name of the hypothesis that Cuculidae and 
Musophagidae are sister-groups.

> My question - is this inconsistent with morphological data or not?

Well, what we really need (for placentals, too!) is a morphological analysis 
_of this size_, with this many taxa, _plus_ of course lots and lots of 
fossils. Does anyone happen to know if Livezey & Zusi are progressing...?

>    The Anomalogonatae divides basally into two clades whose
> composition is a bit of a surprise -

Quite so. I trust the recent reinterpretation of *Messelastur* more.