Re: Waimanu & avian evolution (comments)

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Michael Habib wrote:

> 2) The authors make at least one comment about the possible impact of early 
> Falconiforms (which they have placed in the Cretaceous in this analysis...I 
> find that dubious for reasons that can be discussed later).  Even if the 
> authors are correct about this ancient origin of Falconiforms, is there any 
> good reason to assume that the early forms were already raptorial?

I don't know if this answers your question, but Mayr (2005) interpreted the 
Middle Eocene raptorial bird _Messelastur_ as a link between Strigiformes 
(owls) and Falconiformes (diurnal birds of prey).  In fact, his cladogram 
actually shows Strigiformes nested inside the Falconiformes, following Mayr 
and Clarke (2003).  However, these relationships were not well supported.  
The Cathartidae (New World vultures) is recovered by Mayr as the most basal 
falconiform taxon, which agrees with the findings of Griffiths (1994) based 
on syringeal morphology.  So you don't have to stick your neck out too far 
to suggest that the earliest falconiforms might have been raptorial.  The 
crown group, anyway.

Cheers

Tim