Amazing. It'd be a shame if _Gargantuavis_ is ever sunk into _Elopteryx_. Considering how fragmentary the _Elopteryx_ holotype is, this should probably be a non-starter.
This sentence got me thinking: "Judging from the elongated shape of the preserved caudal vertebrae, _Balaur_ had a long tail (Cau et al., 2015) and, if avian, it is therefore outside Pygostylia, the clade including short-tailed birds."
Pygostylia contains short-tailed birds - but there's no reason why it should contain
*only*
short-tailed birds.
The
length of the tail (and whether or not it es a pygostyle) does not directly determine if _Balaur_ (or _Gargantuavis_ or _Elopteryx_) is a member of Pygostylia or not. Membership of this clade is not dependent on whether the taxon has a pygostyle. Pygostylia is node-based, and anchored in _Confuciusornis_ (e.g., Turner et al., 2012; Hartman et al., 2019). Â
As such, membership of Pygostylia depends on a taxon's phylogenetic position relative to _Confuciusornis_ and crown birds, not on the presence of a pygostyle.Â
Some topologies recover the long-tailed _Jeholornis_ inside Pygostylia. There's even a suggestion that _Balaur_ may be closely related to the volant _Jinguofortis_, which has a pygostyle (
http://theropoda.blogspot.com/2018/09/balaur-un-jinguofortisidae-gigante.html)Â I don't know how the putative _Balaur_-_Gargantuavis_-_Elopteryx_ clade impacts on this hypothesis.
It's likely that the pygostyle evolved multiple times within avialan theropods, making any apomorphy-based definition of Pygostylia impractical. In one way it's unfortunate that "Pygostylia" was chosen as a clade, since the name tends to give the impression that a critter must have a pygostyle in order to be a pygostylian. _Balaur_ etc could theoretically be a pygostylian (i.e. a member of Pygostylia) without a pygostyle.