[Taxacom] Early evolution of Class Aves (should it be expanded?)

[John Grehan]

There is nothing inherently cladistic about whether or note one makes an existing taxonomic label more or less inclusive than its current usage.

John Grehan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kenneth Kinman
>      The problem has unfortunately been that strict cladists
> (and phylocodists in particular) are instead fixated on defining Aves as
> either formally anchored on genus Archaeopteryx, or greatly reduced to a
> crown group only (thus excluding Archaeopteryx and a lot of other birds
> that clearly had evolved powered flight). Most of them seem very
> resistant to applying the name Aves to a more inclusive clade, perhaps
> because they have erected new names for many of the clades which might
> apply to such an expanded Class Aves.   My own proposed Class Aves
> approximates either clade Maniraptora or something intermediate between
> it and Eumaniraptora.