evelyn sobielski wrote-
I remain utterly unconvinced about "Metaves"; I think that considering them a paraphyletic, autapomorphic grouping which may contain the odd small clade that is for real is an alternative hitherto not explored to satisfaction (it has not even been really explored in the original Fain & Houde paper, in which the "metavian" caprimulgiforms were paraphyletic in respect to flamingos, and if *that* does not set one's alarm bells ringing, I am at a loss to think of anything that would...).
This being science after all, I'll just put it like this: give me a good solid attempt to *falsify* the Metaves-Coronaves dichotomy, and if that *fails*, I'll think about it.
Wasn't that what Ericson et al.'s analysis was?
What is a bit disappointing is that the verdict on ciconiiform (non-Sibley) and gruiform monophyly is still out. Well, you can't have everything.
Mickey Mortimer