Re: "Chuniaoae" Ji et al. 1998

["T. Michael Keesey" <mightyodinn@yahoo.com>]

--- Nick Gardner <ratites637@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I was printing off the supplementary information for Ji et al. 1998, and 
> noticed that there were diagnoses for two clades -- "Chuniaoae" and Avialae.

Is it kept in quotes?

>   "Chuniaoae" is not mentioned after that point and appears to be used for 
> the unnamed clade of _Caudipteryx_ + Avialae further down in the text.

Hmm... in the diagram in the Ostrom symposium volume, that node was labelled
Dromavialae, but oviraptorosaurs were more basal.
(http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/2002Feb/msg00463.html)

> I suppose this could be the earliest name for the clade containing both 
> paravians and enigmosaurians.

Well, there's _Maniraptora_ sense Sereno, IIRC.
By the diagram, _Protarchaeopteryx_ was not considered an oviraptorosaur
(therizinosaurs were not included, nor is _Caudipteryx_).

> Definition:
> ?_Caudipteryx_ + Avialae (Gauthier 1986).  Evidentally, the authors were not 
> using Padian (1997)'s definition of Avialae which is Neornithes <-- 
> _Deinonychus_. If they had, the clade would have included 
> _Protarchaeopteryx_ and _Caudipteryx_.  I think that this clade, if used in 
> the future, might be better defined as _Caudipteryx_ + Neornithes, or 
> _Caudipteryx_ + _Archaeopteryx_ + Neornithes,

Or _Caudipteryx zoui_ + _Archaeopteryx lithographica_ + (some neornithean
species, e.g. _Vultur gryphus_), to keep in line with PhyloCode rules.

Not a big fan of this, though, given _Caudipteryx_' variable placement....


=====
=====> T. Michael Keesey <keesey@bigfoot.com>
=====> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
=====> BloodySteak <http://bloodysteak.com>
=====> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
=====

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com