| Re: Any Puter Experts That Can Help |
biology dept., duke |
| mel turner (mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu) |
2004/03/02 02:48 |
In article <c2058n$2d0$0@pita.alt.net>, noway@jose.com [Uncle Davey] wrote...
[snip of previous re: Archy]
>> >As compensation, I want Amphibia to join Pisces.
>> >Or at least, the caecilians should.
>>
>> Well, in a sense they already are. There is no longer a "Pisces" as
>> a recognized taxon. The closest equivalent clades would be groups
>> like "Vertebrata" or "Gnathostomata", both of which already do include
>> amphibians.
>>
>> http://dinosauricon.com/taxa/vertebrata.html
>> http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Sarcopterygii&contgroup=Gnathostomata
>> http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Gnathostomata&contgroup=Vertebrata
>>
>
>Well I think it's a big nightmare.
>
>I liked the good old days, when you had
>
>Pisces,
>Amphibia,
>Reptilia,
>Aves and
>Mammalia.
>You knew were you stood then.
Most of the same groups are still recognized at one level or
other. There's no Pisces, but there are still Chondrichthys,
Osteichthys, etc.
>Is there a picture of all these new fangled taxa anywhere?
As Ken Shaw suggested,
http://tolweb.org/
is easily used, with lots of refs and further links.
http://dinosauricon.com/taxa/index.html
is pretty good, especially for fossil vertebrates
[try starting with
http://dinosauricon.com/taxa/animalia.html
and clicking the different colored links
or start with pages like
http://dinosauricon.com/genera/archaeopteryx.html
http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/default.htm
http://www.palaeos.com/default.htm
is very useful
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/help/taxaform.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/help/index/vertebrata.html
link to lots of useful pages, like
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html
>> >> >If hoatzins don't have bony tails now, then that's not a big issue.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, it is. The presence of a short, fused pygostyle is one of the
>> >> identifying features of the modern bird clade. Hoatzins have
>> >> pygostyles like all other modern birds. Archy had a long reptilian
>> >> tail. It also had toothy jaws instead of a beak, long free clawed
>> >> fingers instead of fused wing digits, and various other features
>> >> more like other dinosaurs than like other birds.
>> >>
>> >> Within
>> >> >cats and dogs, tail length differs greatly.
>> >>
>> >> Why should you or anyone mistake Archeopteryx for a hoatzin? It's
>> >> no closer to hoatzins than to chickens or emus or Norwegian Blue
>> >> parrots.
>> >
>> >The plumage don't enter into it.
>> >This is a dead hoatzin.
>>
>> Well maybe only if all birds are "hoatzins".
>>
>> If you're serious about this hoatzin thing, which features of
>> Archy are the ones that specifically link it with hoatzins. Are
>> there any at all, other than the wing claws?
>
>The general shape of the bird looks like a hoatzin.
I don't think the general shape of a hoatzin is all that distinctive.
Vaguely grouse- or pigeon-shaped:
http://www.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=hoatzin+&btnG=Google+Search
I do think lazy or unimaginative artists sometimes greatly over-used
hoatzins as "models" when drawing or painting their "artists'
impressions" of Archaeopteryx. Does the famous "Berlin specimen" [see
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html
or
http://www.daily-tangents.com/Aves/Archaeop/#berlin77 ]
really look any more like a hoatzin than it does a pigeon, grouse or
chicken, or any other modern bird for that matter?
To me, it looks instead exactly like a long-armed small dinosaur
skeleton [very well-preserved] surrounded by remarkably clear
feather impressions.
If superficial similarities are all it takes, then I suppose the
Paleozoic fossil armored ostracoderms and placoderms were all
really _Corydoras_ catfishes? Or are most of them Loricariids?
cheers
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 |
| 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 |
| 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 |
| 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 |
| 180 | 181 |
|
|