[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: [...] Archaeopteryx 10
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. wrote:
For what it is worth, should _A. siemensii_ be considered a distinct genus,
it reverts to good old _Archaeornis_
I would rate this as a definite possibility - if the two species are indeed
separate. As discussed in previous threads, most of _Archaeopteryx_'s
characters are primitive (plesiomorphic) for Aves. Thus, if the two species
(_lithographica_ and _siemensi_) are distinct, _Archaeopteryx_ may emerge as
paraphyletic in a cladistic analysis. Thus, each species would warrant its
own genus, and _Archaeornis_ is available for _siemensi_.
This could lead to fun and games if _Archaeornis_ is below _Archaeopteryx_
in the cladogram. Under this scenario, _Archaeopteryx_ would be included in
Aves, but _Archaeornis_ would not (at least under the most commonly used
definition, according to which Aves has _Archaeopteryx_ as its most basal
taxon).
Cheers
Tim
_________________________________________________________________
FREE online classifieds from Windows Live Expo ? buy and sell with people
you know
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwex0010000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://expo.live.com?s_cid=Hotmail_tagline_12/06