Re: [...] Archaeopteryx 10

["T. Michael Keesey" <keesey@gmail.com>]

On 2/6/07, Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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).

That's assuming you're using _Aves_ sensu Chiappe. There are other,
IMHO better, definitions:
http://www.phylonames.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19

Under _Aves_ sensu Gauthier (my preferred definition), neither is
avian. Instead, they are basal paravians possibly closer to _Aves_
than _Deinonychosauria_ (but possibly not).

Under _Aves_ sensu Marjanovic (my second favorite), in that scenario
they would both still be avian, assuming they were closer to the crown
group than _Velociraptor_, _Oviraptor_, _Troodon_, etc. (If not, then
they would not be avian.)

--
T. Michael Keesey
The Dinosauricon: http://dino.lm.com
Parry & Carney: http://parryandcarney.com
ISPN Forum: http://www.phylonames.org/forum/