Re: Parahongshanornis, new Chinese Cretaceous bird (free pdf)

[Tim Williams <tijawi@gmail.com>]

Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> wrote:

> Note that many basal ornithuromorphs have short ulnae,


As do many basal neornitheans.  As noted by Nudds et al. (2004), the
retention of short ulnae (giving a humerus/ulna ratio > 1) is
primitive for Neornithes.  Palaeognathous and galloanserean birds
typically have an ulna shorter than the humerus.  Certain flighted
anseriform birds have a humerus/ulna ratio similar to that of the
definitely-flightless _Patagopteryx_ (~1.10-1.16) and the
possibly-flightless _Elsornis_ (1.16).  Although most 'higher' birds
(Neoaves) have a humerus/ulna ratio < 1, certain members reverted to >
1 (e.g., members of Gaviiformes, Gruiformes, Cuculiformes,
Colliformes).


>  which is not surprising given Cau's analysis that found Parahongshanornis 
> isn't a hongshanornithid- http://theropoda.blogspot.com/2011/05
> /parahongshanornis-e-un.html .  You'd think people would learn not to attach 
> their untested phylogenetic hypotheses to names.


Or even their tested phylogenetic hypotheses, given how frequently
taxa shift from their original phylogenetic position.


> Paraprotopteryx, Parascaniornis, Protarchaeopteryx...


Also _Pararhabdodon_, now regarded as a lambeosaurine hadrosaur - not
at all close to _Rhabdodon_ (phylogenetically speaking).  And
_Proceratosaurus_, a basal tyrannosaur, far removed from
_Ceratosaurus_.


At least _Parahesperornis_ appears to be closely related to
_Hesperornis_.... But that doesn't excuse the moniker
_Parahesperornis_, which is still an unforgivably boring name - as bad
as _Pseudolagosuchus_ or _Neoaetosauroides_.







Cheers

Tim