[Taxacom] comprehensive bird morphology study

[Ken Kinman]

Dear All,
     One of zoology's most comprehensive cladistic analyses of morphological 
data has just been published (for birds), by Livesey and Zusi, 2007, in 
Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society.  The taxonomic coverage is 
excellent and the number of characters is truly astounding (over 2,900).

     I have been postponing the updating of my bird classification (of a 
year ago) waiting for this paper, so I am very disappointed to see probable 
convergence affecting their phylogeny of Neoaves (such as putting grebes and 
loons back together; and hoatzin back with cuckoos; etc.).  Especially since 
they have chosen to name a number of new taxa that don't have as much 
support as some of the recent molecular phylogenies.  It clearly 
demonstrates the need to incorporate BOTH morphology and molecules in order 
to achieve a relatively stable phylogeny.

     One baffling new taxon is Palaeoaves, a scaled-down version of my 
Archaeornithes.  While my Archaeornithes + Neornithes covers all of Class 
Aves, there is going to be a large swath of bird taxa (galliforms, 
anseriforms, paleognaths, and various fossil forms) which fall in between 
their "Palaeoaves" and Neoaves.  Strict cladists will automatically reject 
Palaeoaves just because it is paraphyletic, but more importantly (in my 
mind), this new high level taxon just seems ill-conceived and unnecessary.  
Moreso, because of Sibley's "Eoaves" (a synonym of Paleognathae).  Holy cow, 
it seems we now have old (Galloanserae), older (Eoaves), even older (unnamed 
taxon?), and oldest (Palaeoaves)!!!  And some people include Galloanserae in 
Neoaves (sensu lato), while most others don't.  What a big fat mess.  Isn't 
it much easier to remember Subclass Archaeornithes (old) and Subclass 
Neornithes (new)?

     Anyway, the real value of this new work is going to be the HUGE 
morphological database.  Just add in some more fossils and LOTS of molecular 
data, and we will begin to see the emergence of a highly resolved phylogeny 
of living birds.  It's very exciting, but I am very disappointed with their 
phylogeny and nomenclature (especially at the higher taxonomic levels).
    ------ Ken Kinman

P.S.  Below is a link that will take you to a page with a link to the paper. 
  This paper is freely available, but the database was published separately 
(and apparently is not free).  Perhaps they also realize that the latter is 
far more valuable than the former.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/toc/zoj/149/1

Livezey and Zusi, 2007. Higher-order phylogeny of modern birds (Theropoda, 
Aves: Neornithes) based on comparative anatomy. II. Analysis and discussion. 
  Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 149 (1):1-95.

_________________________________________________________________
Valentine’s Day -- Shop for gifts that spell L-O-V-E at MSN Shopping 
http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctId=8323,ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=24095&tcode=wlmtagline