Re: The Papers That Ate Cincinnati

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Mike Keesey wrote:

> Presumably the panclade name would be _Pan-Opisthocomus_ or
> pan-Opisthocomus or something along those lines. It would be
> permissible, e.g., to define _Opisthocomus_ as "_Opisthocomus hoazin_ and 
> all of its descendants".

Wouldn't this be a tautology?

> Alternately, you could use _Opisthocomiformes_ for the total group.

Yep, this is my favourite option.  Trouble is, like I said, as well as 
having _Opisthocomus hoazin_ as the internal specifier, you would have an 
extremely long list of external specifiers.  You would probably need a 
representative of almost every other extant neognath 'order' as an external 
specifier, to cater for any and all topologies of modern bird phylogeny.

> Not a bad idea, either. (With the character of manual unguals in
> juveniles, perhaps? Or digestion by fermentation in the crop?)

If I was forced to use apomorphy-based definitions, I'd probably favour 
something more osteological, to allow for the inclusion of fossil taxa.

Cheers

Tim

_________________________________________________________________
Need a break? Find your escape route with Live Search Maps. 
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?ss=Restaurants~Hotels~Amusement%20Park&cp=33.832922~-117.915659&style=r&lvl=13&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=1118863&encType=1&FORM=MGAC01