ISPN

[tmkeesey]

[David Marjanović]

I really forgot Longisquama! Thanks for reminding me! I don't think anyone has proposed pterosaurs in the primary literature in the last 100 years or more, though.

If Archie is a troodontid, nomenclature gets interesting. The ICZN would require the replacement of Troodontidae by Archaeopterygidae. I wonder if anyone would write a petition for the conservation of Troodontidae... or if it would make any people prefer the PhyloCode where this kind of problem does not exist.

[kinman]

Well, if Troodontidae and Archaeopterygidae form an exclusive clade, I would probably favor keeping them as separate sister families. But I also wouldn't be strongly opposed to sinking Troodontidae as a synonym of Archaeopterygidae.

But frankly I think it more likely that Archaeopterygidae will clade with some family of dromaeosaur (and I still favor splitting dromaeosaurs into more than a single family). Whether Archaeopteryx flew well or only flew poorly doesn't matter much to me. It had the wings of a bird and has been traditionally regarded as a bird. Furthermore, various dromaeosaurs also flew (whether well or poorly or lost flight altogether), they sat on nests incubating ornithoid eggs, and would have lived lives similar to Tertiary birds (whether flighted or flightless).

Some of the large flightless birds of the early Tertiary didn't lead lives terribly different from flightless dromaeosaurs (except the latter still had teeth and longer tails). The loss of teeth and reduction of longer tails probably happened several times independently, so those aren't all that significant in the larger scheme of things. Forms like Microraptor should not be excluded from AVES just because they were discovered so late in the game. It almost certainly flew, nested on ornithoid eggs, and was birdlike in many other ways. I see no good reason to exclude forms like Archaeopteryx and Microraptor from AVES, and I still predict that most workers will still balk at excluding Archaeopteryx in particular. I think even many Phylocodists realize that excluding Archaeopteryx and alienating traditionalists (who mostly follow the ICZN) is counterproductive. AVES is a traditional taxon, and Phylocodists should take EVERY opportunity to avoid antagonizing the non-Phylocodists (and remember that even many strict cladists don't like PhyloCode either). Pick your battles carefully or risk being marginalized and eventually defeated altogether. You're skating on very thin ice on this one, and ignoring non-Phylocodist strict cladists as well as non-strict-cladist traditionalists may be more harmful to cladism than you ever imagined. If so, don't be surprised if even more strict cladists actually join in the criticism of PhyloCode. You are painting yourselves into a very small corner on this one, and if you can't recognize that, I can only say that you were warned. You reap what you sow, so continue in your uncomprising positions, and you deserve what will eventually happen to PhyloCode.
----Ken Kinman

[David Marjanović]

[David Marjanović]

[Nescio]

[kinman]

Ah, but therizinosaurs have a non-ornithoid eggshell microstructure that is nothing like eggshells of oviraptorosaurs. One of many reasons that I have always disputed the enigmosaur "clade". I still believe that therizinosaurs split off between ornithomimosaurs and my expanded AVES (including deinonychosaurs and oviraptorosaurs and mononychiforms). Oviraptorosaurs are probably more derived than deinonychosaurs, so I would also object to using any oviraptorosaur as an external specifier. Anyway, so-called wide-accepted phylogenies are likely to be less widely accepted in the future. Be ready to throw them and enigmosauria on the trash heap with Bullatosauria and Arctometatarsalia. By the way, I do use cladistics and considered myself a cladist. However, I do believe strictly cladistic nomenclature (and PhyloCode in particular) has given a black eye to cladistics in general. My main goal is to minimize that harm, particularly as it concerns traditional taxa like Aves, Mammalia, Reptilia, Amphibia, etc.
----Ken Kinman

[leowsham]

[David Marjanović]

[tmkeesey]

[kinman]

David,
I should have written "mononykiforms" in my post. Sorry about that. But I did spell it correctly as Order Mononykiformes when I published the name in my 1994 book----The Kinman System: Toward A Stable Cladisto-Eclectic Classification of Organisms (Living and Extinct: 48 Phyla, 269 Classes, 1,719 Orders).

In that 1994 classification, I show Mononykiformes phylogenetically splitting off between Archaeopterygiformes and the 4 Orders of enantiornithean birds which I then recognized. And as you know, I only include mononykine genera in this Order, and have never advocated placing Alvarezsaurus in that clade. And I am not the only one who believes that Alvarezsaurus does not clade with the mononykines. I am still patiently awaiting the discovery of the real basal mononykiforms, as well as more complete Alvarezsaurus material (which will show its true phylogenetic placement).
---Ken Kinman

[Nescio]

[leowsham]

Dear Nescio, I was probably too hyped up on this ... I was just saying that paleontology and paleoart is a bit different on the sentiment about birdiness (and for me, it's rather hard to practise both). While science should be strict and precise in defining Aves, the feeling among paleoartists (including me) are more "open". At least, clients just wish us to put something more than reptilian skin on animals they judge to be more related to birds (Aves or not) than to traditional dinosaurs.
Thus, we wouldn't feel bad if science were to define Aves in a way that would have included therizinosaurs ... though, scientifically, I fail to agree.
_________________
vivat scientia !!!

[David Marjanović]

[tmkeesey]