Jump to content

Talk:List of fossil bird genera

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

The number of fossil taxa in some extant genera (e.g. Phalacrocorax) is overwhelming. I suggest that by and by (pending sufficient references) these are moved into an appropriate category in the genus article (e.g. "Evolution of Cormorants" for the example above). Then only the genera with known fossil species would be listed, shortening the article considerably. Eventually (I'm talking the next years here) it would be desirable to pep up the articles on higher-level Neornithes taxa with a brief section on evolutionary origins, as is already the case in some examples. See Fossil_birds#Sphenisciformes and Penguins for an example of how to layout the prehistoric spp of extant genera and save considerable space. Dysmorodrepanis 04:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polyphyly of the Aves

[edit]

Kurochkin (2006) showed that the Sauriurae is monophyletic, with characters uniting Archaeornithes and Enantiornithes, and that the Ornithurae evolved from a different archosaurian ancestor in the Late Triassic. This suggests that the Aves as phylogenetically reconstructed is polyphyletic; scientists need to rethink the true origins and evolution of birds. This paper also demonstrates that Protoavis is probably the ancestor of the Ornithurae. The abstract of this article is reads:

The hypothesis of the direct origin of birds from theropod dinosaurs has recently become widespread. Direct sisterly relationships between theropods and birds were assumed in the basis of random and formal synapomorphies, such as the number of caudal vertebrae, relative length of the humerus, and flattening of the dorsal margin of the pubis. In essence, this hypothesis is supported by the characters of theropods and birds, such as the presence of feathering, furcula, uncinate processes of ribs, pygostyle, double-condyled dorsal joint of the quadrate, and posteriorly turned pubis, which are recognized as homologies. Until recently, these characters have been regarded as avian apomorphies; however, they are presently known in various coelurosaurian groups. At the same time, they occur in various combinations in the Dromaeosauridae, Troodontidae, Oviraptoridae, Therizinosauridae, and Tyrannosauridae. None of the theropod groups possesses the entire set of these characters. This suggests that theropods and birds acquired them in parallel. Theropod dinosaurs and Sauriurae (Archaeornithes and Enantiornithes) show a number of important system synapomorphies, which indicate that they are closely related. Ornithurine birds lack such synapomorphies; however, their monophyly is supported by a large number of diagnostic characters. The hypothesis of independent origin of Sauriurae and Ornithurae is substantiated; the former are considered to have evolved from theropods in the Jurassic, while the latter deviated from a basal archosauromorph group in the Late Triassic. The hypothesis that birds existed in the Early Mesozoic is supported by the findings of small avian footprints in the Upper Triassic and Lower Jurassic of different continents.

Kurochkin, E. N., 2006, Parallel evolution of theropod dinosaurs and birds: Zoologicheskii Zhurnal, v. 85, n. 3, p. 283-297.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To propose that a complex structure like the feather evolved twice in unrelated reptile groups is quite an extraordinary claim. Protoavis and "avian" footprints are not considered extraordinary evidence by a vast, vast majority of paleontologists.Dinoguy2 12:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet it echoes other research, except for the non-theropod idea (which also echoes other research, but nothing that is generally held as likely). In short, Archie tends to come out closer to enantis than to orniths. But the "Triassic" ancestor of the latter begs the question of the suspiciously missing fossil record.
The origin of Neornithes seems to lie in the general region of Australia, pointing to an East Asian origin for the orniths as a whole (Gondwana + NAm + some of Kurochkin's own Central Asian taxa etc). The enantis are apparently Eurasian, possibly East Asian too. Archie we can be safe to say would not have been able to cross the Turgay Sea.
So in conclusion there seems to be a link between Archie and the "real birds", but it would not be surprising if that link is quite a lot more distant than generally presumed. Paleontologists are certainly wary of emphasizing it. What seems to be a reasonable scenario is that enantis and orniths fall within the clade of Archie and Epidendrosaurus, or sister to it. The two "real bird" lineages are not certainly monophyletic, but they seem to be quite closely related; they cannot have diverged long after Archie though. In that respect, Yanornithiformes would certainly deserve to get an article. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dagger Symbols

[edit]

Do the dagger symbols † serve any useful purpose? I was unable to link to Basal Ornithurae because of the attached reference. Can the reference be moved out of the section heading? Mollwollfumble (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a work around it, but I can't find out what it is.. In any case, the phylogeny is probably not such a good idea. It's close, but "basal" does not mean what the tree purports it to mean. It might be possible to do it actually, but I am not sure if it's possible yet to produce such a "crude" tree and not lie in readers' faces. The actual "nodes" are essentially undetermined for a large part.
In short, it's a sketch of the actual evolutionary tree that is possibly correct and likely correct for a large part. But it mis- and underrepresents a few salient points. Basically, any major group of birds that lived 1000 million years ago and earlier is phylogenetically still very enigmatic. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The dagger symbols serve a useful purpose and in this article they are actually applied consistently. See for axample the Galliformes. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Hello, I would like to know what are precisely the sources for that list. The only consistent reference mentionned is Olson, Storrs L. (1985): The fossil record of birds, but it's dated 1985, which is a bit old. What sources could I use do write a list of fossil birds on an other wiki ? Thanks for you help, regards PurpleHz (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of fossil bird genera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of fossil bird genera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_fossil_bird_genera&oldid=1208238731"