Re: Greg Paul is right (again); or "Archie's not a birdy"

[Jura <pristichampsus@yahoo.com>]

----- Original Message -----

> From: Jura <pristichampsus@yahoo.com>
> To: Dinosaur Mailing List <dinosaur@usc.edu>
> Cc: 
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 July 2011 4:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Greg Paul is right (again); or "Archie's not a birdy"
> 
>  ----- Original Message -----
> 
>>  From: Mike Taylor <mike@indexdata.com>
>>  To: keesey@gmail.com
>>  Cc: Dinosaur Mailing List <dinosaur@usc.edu>
>>  Sent: Wednesday, 27 July 2011 4:36 PM
>>  Subject: Re: Greg Paul is right (again); or "Archie's not a 
> birdy"
>> 
>>  On 27 July 2011 18:34, Mike Keesey <keesey@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>   On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. 
>>  <tholtz@umd.edu> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>   An Archaeopteryx-like theropod from China and the origin of 
> Avialae
>>>> 
>>>>   Xing Xu,         Hailu You,      Kai Du  & Fenglu Han
>>>>   Nature 475, 465–470 (28 July 2011) doi:10.1038/nature10288
>>>>   Received 16 November 2010 Accepted 10 June 2011 Published online 
> 27 
>>  July 2011
>>>> 
>>>>   Archaeopteryx is widely accepted as being the most basal bird, and
>>>>   accordingly it is regarded as central to understanding avialan 
> origins;
>>>>   however, recent discoveries of derived maniraptorans have weakened 
> the
>>>>   avialan status of Archaeopteryx. Here we report a new 
>>  Archaeopteryx-like
>>>>   theropod from China. This find further demonstrates that many 
> features
>>>>   formerly regarded as being diagnostic of Avialae, including long 
> and
>>>>   robust forelimbs, actually characterize the more inclusive group 
>>  Paraves
>>>>   (composed of the avialans and the deinonychosaurs). Notably, 
> adding the
>>>>   new taxon into a comprehensive phylogenetic analysis shifts 
>>  Archaeopteryx
>>>>   to the Deinonychosauria. Despite only tentative statistical 
> support, 
>>  this
>>>>   result challenges the centrality of Archaeopteryx in the 
> transition to
>>>>   birds. If this new phylogenetic hypothesis can be confirmed by 
> further
>>>>   investigation, current assumptions regarding 
l need to be re-evaluated.
>>> 
>>>   Very cool!
>>> 
>>>   Yet another reason why the definition of "Aves" should not 
> rest 
>>  on
>>>   _Archaeopteryx_.
>> 
>>  Really?
>> 
>>  Wouldn't it have been AT LEAST equally cool to have reported this
>>  study under the headline Velociraptor Was A Bird?
>> 
>>  -- Mike.
> 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> Wholeheartedly agree. The other (so far) unmentioned part of this story is 
> what 
> happens to Aves.
> 
> Jason 
>
Stupid truncation demon.