Re: "Chuniaoae" Ji et al. 1998

["Nick Gardner" <ratites637@hotmail.com>]

I 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.

T. Michael Keesey wrote:
> Is it kept in quotes?

Yes, it used at least once and only in quotes.  That is why I left it in 
quotes for my post.  Then it is referred to as the _Caudipteryx_ + Avialae 
clade in the next part of the supplementary information.

> [referring to the _Caudipteryx_ + Avialae node]
> 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)

_Caudipteryx_ does not appear on that diagram.  I suppose you are referring 
to _Protarchaeopteryx_.


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

That would be preferable.

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

I don't see what you mean.  Nearly universally, phylogenetic analyses have 
found _Caudipteryx_ to be an oviraptorosaur.


Nick Gardner

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus