Re: [...] Archaeopteryx 10

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "evelyn sobielski" <koreke77@yahoo.de>
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 1:04 AM
Subject: RE: Livezey and Zusi's big bird morph analysis and Archaeopteryx 10

> > Mayr, Pohl, Hartman and Peters, 2007. The tenth
> > skeletal specimen of
> > Archaeopteryx. Zoological Journal of the Linnean
> > Society. 149 (1), 97 -- 116.

An interesting outcome of this study is the distinction of two species: *A. 
lithographica*, including the London (1), Maxberg (3), Haarlem (4), and 
Solnhofen (5) specimens, and *A. siemensii*, including the Berlin (2), 
Munich (7), and Thermopolis (10) specimens. *Wellnhoferia grandis* is sunk 
because, while distinct from *A. siemensii*, it cannot be told apart from 
*A. lithographica*, and *A. bavarica* is sunk because the supposed sternum 
is part of the coracoid, removing the main difference between it and *A. 
siemensii* -- various proportions differ between the Munich specimen and the 
Berlin specimen, but in these the Thermopolis specimen is intermediate. The 
very small Eichstätt specimen (6), the very incomplete 8th specimen, and the 
inaccessible 9th specimen are not assigned to a species. -- *A. 
lithographica* is larger, has much larger flexor tubercles on the toe claws, 
different limb proportions, a stouter metatarsus, and a constriction in the 
middle of the premaxillary tooth crowns; the other features previously 
considered diagnostic for *Wellnhoferia* could also be diagnostic for *A. 
lithographica*, but are not preserved in the other three specimens; the end 
of the tail is not preserved in the Solnhofen specimen, so its tail length, 
previously considered diagnostic, can only be estimated.

The first toe is said to point medially (apparently as in *Confuciusornis*) 
rather than cranially.

Bonus points for putting the dot on Elzanowski's z!

> Does it contain a phylogenetic analysis with more taxa
> than the preliminary study ("A well-preserved...
> theropod features") - on both sides of Archie?

No, it doesn't contain any phylogenetic analysis at all. Apparently no new 
features were discovered since the original 2005 paper.

> I'm most eagerly awaiting that. Their
> placement of Confuciusornis in the Microraptor clade
> is possibly as large a revolution

I think you weren't onlist yet when Mickey M showed the result was due to 
typos such as coding the tooth attachment of *Rahonavis* for which no head 
or neck is known... I'll dig up the links in a few hours. That's not to say 
such a result couldn't come out in the next analysis, but it does not in 
this one.

> For another
> thing, it would indicate Gauthier's, not Sereno's
> definition of Aves is more meaningful;

Hardly. I do think, though, it's a good argument for me to finally publish 
my proposed definition!

> and that
> (gasp!) Archie might be excluded from the Aves
> altogether at some future date...

Excluding Archie is not the same as including everything from *Sapeornis* to 
*Ichthyornis*. My definition makes the former possible (depending on the 
phylogeny) but avoids the latter (unless Kurochkin is right -- fat 
chance --; in that case "Saururae" would drop out).

> "Bird", if the Mayr et al
> study is worth anything, is a form taxon with no
> phylogenetic merit if one includes the fossil record,

You're way too pessimistic :-)

> The message from the preliminary analysis of Archie
> #10 is that either Confuciusornis or Archie were Aves -
> and in fact, maybe neither! -, but not both

I don't see anything that could pull *Confuciusornis* out of its position 
within Avebrevicauda.

> We need more analyses

Here I agree.

> PS: Is the character set and matrix for Livezey/Zusi
> available separately?

Yes, as cited, for 25 $.