Eike wrote about phorusrhacids:
> And: they might not be Gruiformes (cranes and rails
> and some others). Hasn't been analyzed yet, but the
> groups of birds unequivocally accepted as Gruiformes
> nowadays all originated in Laurasia IIRC, that is
> Eurasia + North America. Terror birds evolved in South
> America, which at their time was still separate. Not> as far as to
> preclude a gruiform relationship, but far
> enough to make it disputable. Presumed European
> relatives have been moved out of the group. Thus,
> their relationships need restudy, this aspiring
> student of all things avian say.
What you say there is not completely true; while you are right that
Aenigmavis, which was postulated to be a basal phorusrhacid is no longer
regarded as such but rather as a sophiornithid, that is a basal
strigiform, that does not mean no phorusrhacid relatives are known from
Palaeogene Laurasia. In fact, quite a few bathornithids and idiornithids
are known from this time and these are part of Cariamae, just like Titanis
and kin. It rather seems that the latter, and perhaps seriemas too, were a
southern branch of this group that proved in the long run just a little
more succesful then the northern clade which seems to have disappeared by
Neogene times.That said, I agree that Cariamae probably have little to do
with traditional Gruiformes. The proposed Metaves/Coronaves split is
highly interesting and especially regarding 'Gruiformes'. Kagu, sunbittern
and mesites are in Metaves whereas the rest is in Coronaves. Of these,
seriemas (and thus Cariamae) are far from the others and placed in a, if
accurate, highly interesting clade consisting of them, passeriforms,
falcons and psittaciforms. It surprises me no one has yet given this clade
a name (as far as I know), as it is a lovely clade indeed.