Re: New paper on Neoaves

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

> Or maybe Amphioxus isn't a chordate.  There have been a ton of new basal
> deuterostome discoveries lately, and the molecular analysis of Delsuc et 
> al.
> (2006) seemed fine with that arrangement.

Classical morphological hypothesis (no fossils used whatsoever!):

Deuterostomia
 |--Echinodermata
 `--+--Hemichordata (sometimes thought paraphyletic)
    `--Chordata
         |--Urochordata/Tunicata
         `--Holochordata
              |--Cephalochordata (*Branchiostoma*, *Asymmetron* etc.)
              `--Craniata

Molecular hypothesis as of 2006:

Deuterostomia
 |--+--Echinodermata
 |  `--Hemichordata
 `--Chordata
      |--Cephalochordata
      `--Olfactores
           |--Urochordata
           `--Craniata

Fossils of non-chordate deuterostomes, especially those from Chengjiang, fit 
better into this topology, and morphological support for Olfactores is also 
available. Plus, it is clear that the tunicates have a long morphological 
branch. So I'd say the molecular topology has a good chance of popping up in 
future morphological analyses.