Re: [...] Archaeopteryx 10

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

I wrote:

> I think you weren't onlist yet when Mickey M showed the result was due
> to typos such as coding the tooth attachment of *Rahonavis* for which
> no head or neck is known... I'll dig up the links in a few hours.

_GAH!_ I had confused this http://dml.cmnh.org/2005Oct/msg00372.html, which 
finds typos in the *Buitreraptor* paper that, when corrected, produce a tree 
different from the published one (scroll down to the bottom 1/3, "While writing 
this post", below point 15), with this 
http://dml.cmnh.org/2005Dec/msg00080.html, which merely notes that there are 
derived character states which *Archaeopteryx* shares only with Avebrevicauda 
and which are not in the matrix by Mayr et al. I repeat the first 3 sentences 
of the last paragraph:

>>
So contra Mayr et al. (2005), there are "significant derived characters that 
are exclusively shared by Archaeopteryx and more typical avians such as 
Confuciusornis but are absent in basal deinonychosaurs such as Microraptor." 
This isn't to say I don't think their phylogenetic conclusions are plausible 
(except placing Confuciusornis closer to Microraptor than Sinornithosaurus is). 
And I agree with their broad conclusion deinonychosaurs may be avians sensu 
Chiappe.
<<
-- 
Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen! 
Ideal für Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer