RE: Several New Papers

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Evelyn Sobielski wrote:

> 4 seem to be good in any case - Galloanseres, Charadriiformes, "higher 
> waterbirds" and "higher
> landbirds". In fact, these 4 seem to be as definite and rock-solid as 
> anyone could tell at present.

Well, the exclusion of Anseriformes and Galliformes from Neoaves is well 
supported on both molecular and morphological grounds.  But the cladistic 
analysis of Bourdon (2005) found that the inclusion of odontopterygiforms 
broke up Galloanserae in favor of an Odontopterygiformes+Anseriformes clade 
(Odontoanserae).  It'll be intereresting to see what effect other putative 
basal neognaths have on the Galloanserae (dromornithids, bathornithids).

> Asiahesperornis is not really exciting. Maastrichtian hesperornithiforms 
> are not of much use
> phylogenetically as of now.

Nevertheless, it was nice of Dyke &c to confirm that it is indeed a 
hesperornithiform.

Mickey Mortimer wrote:

> Wasn't that what Ericson et al.'s analysis was?

Both Metaves and Coronaves received a posterior probability value of 95% or 
more, as did many of the ingroups.  95% certainly sounds impressive.  
However, Ericson &c performed a Bayesian analysis, and posterior 
probabilities tend to be inflated relative to the respective bootstrap 
values.  I'm a little skeptical of their topology too, including the 
Coronaves-Metaves split.

Cheers

Tim

_________________________________________________________________
Fixing up the home? Live Search can help 
http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=WLMTAG