RE: Applying Sereno's definitions to Neotetanurae: Part 2

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Mickey Mortimer wrote:

> Metornithes
> Mononykus olecranus + Passer domesticus, - Dromaeosaurus albertensis
> Chiappe and Calvo, 1994 + Norell et al., 1996 + Zhang and Zhou, 2000; 
> Chiappe 2001 and 2002; Lu et al., 2002; Maryanska et al., 2002

Mickey, I agreed with every one of your ideas... until I came to this one.  
:-)  I agree with Sereno that Metornithes is a bad idea.  The name 
Metornithes was originally erected to include all birds above 
_Archaeopteryx_, at a time when _Mononykus_ was thought to be a bird.  Perle 
et al. (1993) vaguely defined Metornithes as ?a group within Avialae not 
including Archaeopteryx?, with _Mononykus_ as its most basal member.  Thus, 
Metornithes was originally intended to be a clade of birds - and the name 
'Metornithes' reflects that intent.  Given that alvarezsaurids are now 
rarely (if ever) recovered as birds, we should probably let Metornithes go.

Mickey's definition is more in keeping with the later use of Metornithes 
(e.g., Chiappe [1995]), as a clade that is anchored on _Mononykus_ and is 
therefore more inclusive than Aves or Avialae.

Sereno's arguments for abandoning Metornithes are convincing, IMHO.

> (Ornithurae sensu Chiappe)
> Hesperornis regalis + Passer domesticus
> Chiappe and Calvo, 1994 and modifications; Hou et al., 1996; Chatterjee, 
> 1999; Chiappe, 2001 and 2002; Norell and Clarke, 2001 and modifications; 
> mine

Neornithurae?

Cheers

Tim