This is my second reply to a post by John Harshman on another thread:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/U-99grFea8E/m/vj8TF0RaAAAJ
Re: Hesperornid Acquisition here in Columbia ATTN: Popping mad

That title long outlived its usefulness, and my first reply already
would already have been more appropriate here. It was:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/U-99grFea8E/m/K0OXzSgIAQAJ

On Wednesday, October 26, 2022 at 4:30:33 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 10/26/22 12:57 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 10:14:35 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 10/21/22 1:36 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 3:24:55 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 10/26/22 12:57 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

Picking up almost where I left off in my first reply:

> >>>>>there are at least three bird lineages
> >>>>> surviving the K/P extinction.
> >>>
> >>>> Again, at least 7: paleognaths, neoaves, galliforms, anhimids,
> >>>> presbyornithids, anseranatidae, anatidae.
> >>>
> >>> Which bird did you have in mind from neoaves?

It's worth noting that the last 5 groups you list are all in Galloanserae.
If, as is generally believed, the first split in Neornithes is between
paleognaths and Galloanserae, you are assuming below that
Neoaves and Galloanserae are sister groups, right?

> >> It's all implied by the tree if we suppose there are Cretaceous
> >> presbyornithids and that presbyornithids are the sister group of
> >> anatids. I wasn't referring to any other fossils.

The problem with that, as we saw in the first reply, is
that the claim of there being Cretaceous presbyornithids
is shaky. You need several generally accepted Cretaceous
members of Galloanserae to make the claim that there
were 7 lineages.

> >
> > This double-dipping (the same fossils for neoaves and presbyornithids)
> > brings the total down to at most 6 but probably at most 5.

> Beg pardon? I fail to understand your objection here. The point is that
> if group X exists, so must its sister group.

Right, but how far does this generality take us? We need to be clear on where
we are relying on this group X - sister talk, and where we
are relying on Cretaceous fossils.

> > By the way, are you using Cretaceous representatives of crown groups?
> > I mean crown anatiforms for the Cretaceous anatiforms, etc. (except of course
> > for the presbyornithids, which became extinct in the Miocene).

> You mean "anseriforms" or possibly "anatids". Presbyornithids are crown
> group anseriforms. If there are Cretaceous presbyornithinds, then there
> must also be Cretaceous anatids, since they are sister groups.

There is that nasty word "if" again. Where are the generally accepted
Cretaceous fossils?

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

On 11/25/22 7:56 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> This is my second reply to a post by John Harshman on another thread:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/U-99grFea8E/m/vj8TF0RaAAAJ
> Re: Hesperornid Acquisition here in Columbia ATTN: Popping mad
>
> That title long outlived its usefulness, and my first reply already
> would already have been more appropriate here. It was:
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/U-99grFea8E/m/K0OXzSgIAQAJ
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 26, 2022 at 4:30:33 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 10/26/22 12:57 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 10:14:35 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 10/21/22 1:36 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 3:24:55 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/26/22 12:57 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> Picking up almost where I left off in my first reply:
>
>>>>>>> there are at least three bird lineages
>>>>>>> surviving the K/P extinction.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, at least 7: paleognaths, neoaves, galliforms, anhimids,
>>>>>> presbyornithids, anseranatidae, anatidae.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which bird did you have in mind from neoaves?
>
> It's worth noting that the last 5 groups you list are all in Galloanserae.
> If, as is generally believed, the first split in Neornithes is between
> paleognaths and Galloanserae, you are assuming below that
> Neoaves and Galloanserae are sister groups, right?
>
>
>>>> It's all implied by the tree if we suppose there are Cretaceous
>>>> presbyornithids and that presbyornithids are the sister group of
>>>> anatids. I wasn't referring to any other fossils.
>
> The problem with that, as we saw in the first reply, is
> that the claim of there being Cretaceous presbyornithids
> is shaky. You need several generally accepted Cretaceous
> members of Galloanserae to make the claim that there
> were 7 lineages.

No, you only need one, as long as it's the right one. Either a
presbyornithid or an anatid would do.

Here is a claim of a Cretaceous presbyornithid:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4785986/

>>> This double-dipping (the same fossils for neoaves and presbyornithids)
>>> brings the total down to at most 6 but probably at most 5.
>
>> Beg pardon? I fail to understand your objection here. The point is that
>> if group X exists, so must its sister group.
>
> Right, but how far does this generality take us? We need to be clear on where
> we are relying on this group X - sister talk, and where we
> are relying on Cretaceous fossils.

Again, one Cretaceous presbyornithid implies at least 7 lineages;
Presbyornithidae, Anatidae, Anseranatidae, Anhimidae, Galliformes,
Neoaves, Palaeognathae.

One might also add Gastornithidae and Pelagornithidae, though I'm not
sure whether those are both separate branches.

>>> By the way, are you using Cretaceous representatives of crown groups?
>>> I mean crown anatiforms for the Cretaceous anatiforms, etc. (except of course
>>> for the presbyornithids, which became extinct in the Miocene).
>
>> You mean "anseriforms" or possibly "anatids". Presbyornithids are crown
>> group anseriforms. If there are Cretaceous presbyornithinds, then there
>> must also be Cretaceous anatids, since they are sister groups.
>
> There is that nasty word "if" again. Where are the generally accepted
> Cretaceous fossils?

I'm not sure the literature on this is extensive enough for there to be
any way to evaluate "generally accepted". One can only present publications.

On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 1:07:11 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 11/25/22 7:56 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 26, 2022 at 4:30:33 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 10/26/22 12:57 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 10:14:35 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 10/21/22 1:36 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 3:24:55 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/26/22 12:57 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> >>>>>>> there are at least three bird lineages
> >>>>>>> surviving the K/P extinction.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Again, at least 7: paleognaths, neoaves, galliforms, anhimids,
> >>>>>> presbyornithids, anseranatidae, anatidae.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Which bird did you have in mind from neoaves?
> >
> > It's worth noting that the last 5 groups you list are all in Galloanserae.

And the last four are generally believed to be in Anseriformes ("waterfowl").

> > If, as is generally believed, the first split in Neornithes is between
> > paleognaths and Galloanserae, you are assuming below that
> > Neoaves and Galloanserae are sister groups, right?

You don't answer this, but I soon figured out that I was right here.

> >
> >>>> It's all implied by the tree if we suppose there are Cretaceous
> >>>> presbyornithids and that presbyornithids are the sister group of
> >>>> anatids. I wasn't referring to any other fossils.
> >
> > The problem with that, as we saw in the first reply, is
> > that the claim of there being Cretaceous presbyornithids
> > is shaky. You need several generally accepted Cretaceous
> > members of Galloanserae to make the claim that there
> > were 7 lineages.

> No, you only need one, as long as it's the right one. Either a
> presbyornithid or an anatid would do.

You are assuming some other features of the phylogenetic tree
of the order Anseriformes ("waterfowl") that you aren't
identifying here. What are they?

> Here is a claim of a Cretaceous presbyornithid:
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4785986/

It sounds rather tentative, so not too encouraging of "only need one":

"Although screamers (Anhimidae) may have evolved from presbyornithid-like birds, the uncertainty as to whether skeletal features shared by presbyornithids and anhimids are plesiomorphic within Anseriformes or indicative of a close relationship between the two cannot yet be resolved. In any case, recognition of W. tedfordi as a presbyornithid calls for a reassessment of the phylogenetic position of Presbyornithidae within Anseriformes."

Sounds like your hypothesis is much more easily falsifiable than the hypothesis that a
species of *Merychippus* is directly ancestral to *Equus* in the horse family.

> One might also add Gastornithidae and Pelagornithidae, though I'm not
> sure whether those are both separate branches.

Ah, one of my favorite bird families, those pelagornithids ["pseudotoothed birds"].
The biggest one of all, with a wingspread over 20 feet, was found right here
in South Carolina, while clearing land for the Charleston international airport.

However, I saw no candidates for either family having Cretaceous members.
And whether they are separate branches or the same seems irrelevant.
You really have your work cut out for you to find an indirect phylogenetic
tree way to make them survivors of the K-P extinction.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

On 11/28/22 7:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 1:07:11 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 11/25/22 7:56 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, October 26, 2022 at 4:30:33 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 10/26/22 12:57 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 10:14:35 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/21/22 1:36 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 3:24:55 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/26/22 12:57 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> there are at least three bird lineages
>>>>>>>>> surviving the K/P extinction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again, at least 7: paleognaths, neoaves, galliforms, anhimids,
>>>>>>>> presbyornithids, anseranatidae, anatidae.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which bird did you have in mind from neoaves?
>>>
>>> It's worth noting that the last 5 groups you list are all in Galloanserae.
>
> And the last four are generally believed to be in Anseriformes ("waterfowl").

"Generally believed" is a very weak statement, and I'm not sure why you
put it that way. Yes, they are anseriforms.

>>> If, as is generally believed, the first split in Neornithes is between
>>> paleognaths and Galloanserae, you are assuming below that
>>> Neoaves and Galloanserae are sister groups, right?
>
> You don't answer this, but I soon figured out that I was right here.

You are partly right and partly wrong. The first part of your sentence
is wrong but the second is right, and in fact the two parts are
contradictory.

>>>>>> It's all implied by the tree if we suppose there are Cretaceous
>>>>>> presbyornithids and that presbyornithids are the sister group of
>>>>>> anatids. I wasn't referring to any other fossils.
>>>
>>> The problem with that, as we saw in the first reply, is
>>> that the claim of there being Cretaceous presbyornithids
>>> is shaky. You need several generally accepted Cretaceous
>>> members of Galloanserae to make the claim that there
>>> were 7 lineages.
>
>> No, you only need one, as long as it's the right one. Either a
>> presbyornithid or an anatid would do.
>
> You are assuming some other features of the phylogenetic tree
> of the order Anseriformes ("waterfowl") that you aren't
> identifying here. What are they?

Just the usual (and well-confirmed) relationships. Are you in any doubt?

>> Here is a claim of a Cretaceous presbyornithid:
>>
>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4785986/
>
> It sounds rather tentative, so not too encouraging of "only need one":
>
> "Although screamers (Anhimidae) may have evolved from presbyornithid-like birds, the uncertainty as to whether skeletal features shared by presbyornithids and anhimids are plesiomorphic within Anseriformes or indicative of a close relationship between the two cannot yet be resolved. In any case, recognition of W. tedfordi as a presbyornithid calls for a reassessment of the phylogenetic position of Presbyornithidae within Anseriformes."
>
> Sounds like your hypothesis is much more easily falsifiable than the hypothesis that a
> species of *Merychippus* is directly ancestral to *Equus* in the horse family.

??

>> One might also add Gastornithidae and Pelagornithidae, though I'm not
>> sure whether those are both separate branches.
>
> Ah, one of my favorite bird families, those pelagornithids ["pseudotoothed birds"].
> The biggest one of all, with a wingspread over 20 feet, was found right here
> in South Carolina, while clearing land for the Charleston international airport.
>
>
> However, I saw no candidates for either family having Cretaceous members.
> And whether they are separate branches or the same seems irrelevant.
> You really have your work cut out for you to find an indirect phylogenetic
> tree way to make them survivors of the K-P extinction.

You still don't seem to understand how this works. If we have a
Cretaceous example of a particular branch, all nodes below that branch
must also exist at that time. Given a Cretaceous presbyornithid, and
give tnat Presbyornithidae is the sister group of Anatidae, there must
be Cretaceous gastornithids and/or (depending on the tree)
pelagornithids, and anseranatids, anhimids, neoavians, and paleognaths.

On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 9:19:13 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 11/28/22 7:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 1:07:11 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 11/25/22 7:56 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, October 26, 2022 at 4:30:33 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 10/26/22 12:57 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 10:14:35 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/21/22 1:36 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 3:24:55 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 10/26/22 12:57 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>>>> there are at least three bird lineages
> >>>>>>>>> surviving the K/P extinction.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Again, at least 7: paleognaths, neoaves, galliforms, anhimids,
> >>>>>>>> presbyornithids, anseranatidae, anatidae.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Which bird did you have in mind from neoaves?
> >>>
> >>> It's worth noting that the last 5 groups you list are all in Galloanserae.
> >
> > And the last four are generally believed to be in Anseriformes ("waterfowl").

> "Generally believed" is a very weak statement, and I'm not sure why you
> put it that way.

Because Gerald Mayr, on p. 115 of his 2017 book, had some doubts about presbyornithids:

"Unfortunately, an assessment of the affinities of presbyornithids is hampered by the poorly known morphology of the skull, which has not yet been studied in detail, despite the availability of numerous well-preserved specimens. The quadrate, the only skull bone of which more detailed descriptions exist, exhibits several presumably plesimorphic characteristics, which suggest a position of presbyornithids outside crown group Anseriformes [Elzanowski and Stidham 2010]."

> Yes, they are anseriforms.

That's a very strong statement. :)

> >>> If, as is generally believed, the first split in Neornithes is between
> >>> paleognaths and Galloanserae, you are assuming below that
> >>> Neoaves and Galloanserae are sister groups, right?
> >
> > You don't answer this, but I soon figured out that I was right here.

> You are partly right and partly wrong. The first part of your sentence
> is wrong

Sorry, I was absent-minded. I meant "neognaths" instead
of Galloanserae in the first part.

However, the possibility that there is a poorly resolved trichotomy
between the three groups occurred to me just now. Recall the example of
{theropods, sauropods, ornithischians} at the base of Dinosauria.
Is it different with the base of Neornithes?

> >>>>>> It's all implied by the tree if we suppose there are Cretaceous
> >>>>>> presbyornithids and that presbyornithids are the sister group of
> >>>>>> anatids. I wasn't referring to any other fossils.
> >>>
> >>> The problem with that, as we saw in the first reply, is
> >>> that the claim of there being Cretaceous presbyornithids
> >>> is shaky. You need several generally accepted Cretaceous
> >>> members of Galloanserae to make the claim that there
> >>> were 7 lineages.
> >
> >> No, you only need one, as long as it's the right one. Either a
> >> presbyornithid or an anatid would do.
> >
> > You are assuming some other features of the phylogenetic tree
> > of the order Anseriformes ("waterfowl") that you aren't
> > identifying here. What are they?

> Just the usual (and well-confirmed) relationships.

Why so tight-lipped? I suppose you are referring to the tree of Anseriformes
in Wikipedia, but since when is Wikipedia an infallible guide to phylogeny?

> Are you in any doubt?

Yes, whenever you are as tight-lipped as this. Besides, it's bad form:
what is sci.bio.paleontology for, if not for liberal conveying
of information among participants? I say "among" instead of "between"
because I think other regulars can benefit from a more informative
answer to the question I asked. That's why I wrote "waterfowl" after
"Anseriformes" because there might be some readers who are unfamiliar
with the technical designations of bird orders.

CONCLUDED in next reply, to be done not long after I see
that this one has posted.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of So. Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 9:19:13 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 11/28/22 7:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 1:07:11 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 11/25/22 7:56 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, October 26, 2022 at 4:30:33 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 10/26/22 12:57 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 10:14:35 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/21/22 1:36 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 3:24:55 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 10/26/22 12:57 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> >>>>>>>>> there are at least three bird lineages
> >>>>>>>>> surviving the K/P extinction.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Again, at least 7: paleognaths, neoaves, galliforms, anhimids,
> >>>>>>>> presbyornithids, anseranatidae, anatidae.

<snip to get to where I left off in my first reply>

> >> Here is a claim of a Cretaceous presbyornithid:
> >>
> >> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4785986/
> >
> > It sounds rather tentative, so not too encouraging of "only need one":
> >
> > "Although screamers (Anhimidae) may have evolved from presbyornithid-like birds, the uncertainty as to whether skeletal features shared by presbyornithids and anhimids are plesiomorphic within Anseriformes or indicative of a close relationship between the two cannot yet be resolved. In any case, recognition of W. tedfordi as a presbyornithid calls for a reassessment of the phylogenetic position of Presbyornithidae within Anseriformes."
> >
> > Sounds like your hypothesis is much more easily falsifiable than the hypothesis that a
> > species of *Merychippus* is directly ancestral to *Equus* in the horse family.

> ??

Come on, John, the general theme of direct ancestry
has been a perennial bone of contention between us.
If you disagree in this instance, please explain your disagreement.

> >> One might also add Gastornithidae and Pelagornithidae, though I'm not
> >> sure whether those are both separate branches.
> >
> > Ah, one of my favorite bird families, those pelagornithids ["pseudotoothed birds"].
> > The biggest one of all, with a wingspread over 20 feet, was found right here
> > in South Carolina, while clearing land for the Charleston international airport.

I'm glad you mentioned them. I found out a fascinating piece of information from the
Wikipedia entry on them just now.

"They were the dominant seabirds of most oceans throughout most of the Cenozoic, and modern humans apparently missed encountering them only by a tiny measure of evolutionary time: the last known pelagornithids were contemporaries of Homo habilis and the beginning of the history of technology.[3]"

So near and yet so far. :(

> >
> > However, I saw no candidates for either family having Cretaceous members.
> > And whether they are separate branches or the same seems irrelevant.
> > You really have your work cut out for you to find an indirect phylogenetic
> > tree way to make them survivors of the K-P extinction.

> You still don't seem to understand how this works.

I don't understand why you say this. You are ignoring the fact that Gastornis
is considered by some to be within crown Anseriformes.

As for pelagornithids, the Wikipedia entry tentatively put them into Galloanserae,
but then treated us to a long discussion that reads like a technical review paper
of various proposed possibilities, including some "outliers" in Neoaves.
..

>If we have a
> Cretaceous example of a particular branch, all nodes below that branch
> must also exist at that time. Given a Cretaceous presbyornithid, and
> give tnat Presbyornithidae is the sister group of Anatidae, there must
> be Cretaceous gastornithids and/or (depending on the tree)
> pelagornithids, and anseranatids, anhimids, neoavians, and paleognaths.

Too many assumptions here, in the light of my latest comments.
Add to them the possibility that Mayr gave [see my first reply to your post],
that presbyornithids are outside Anseriformes, and you could be down to
paleognaths, neoaves, galliforms, presbyornithids, and a cladogenesis
at some Paleocene member of total Anseriformes after anagenesis
(or evolutionary stasis) from where presbyornithids split off from from Anseriformes.

Five lineages, not seven.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
Univ. of So. Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

On 11/30/22 2:10 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 9:19:13 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 11/28/22 7:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 1:07:11 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 11/25/22 7:56 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, October 26, 2022 at 4:30:33 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/26/22 12:57 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 10:14:35 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/21/22 1:36 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 3:24:55 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/22 12:57 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> there are at least three bird lineages
>>>>>>>>>>> surviving the K/P extinction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Again, at least 7: paleognaths, neoaves, galliforms, anhimids,
>>>>>>>>>> presbyornithids, anseranatidae, anatidae.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which bird did you have in mind from neoaves?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's worth noting that the last 5 groups you list are all in Galloanserae.
>>>
>>> And the last four are generally believed to be in Anseriformes ("waterfowl").
>
>> "Generally believed" is a very weak statement, and I'm not sure why you
>> put it that way.
>
> Because Gerald Mayr, on p. 115 of his 2017 book, had some doubts about presbyornithids:
>
> "Unfortunately, an assessment of the affinities of presbyornithids is hampered by the poorly known morphology of the skull, which has not yet been studied in detail, despite the availability of numerous well-preserved specimens. The quadrate, the only skull bone of which more detailed descriptions exist, exhibits several presumably plesimorphic characteristics, which suggest a position of presbyornithids outside crown group Anseriformes [Elzanowski and Stidham 2010]."
>
>
>> Yes, they are anseriforms.
>
> That's a very strong statement. :)

Well, they have duck bills. The skull may not have been described
completely but it's been well illustrated by Olson & Feduccia. I'll have
to see what Elzanowski & Stidham have to say.

>>>>> If, as is generally believed, the first split in Neornithes is between
>>>>> paleognaths and Galloanserae, you are assuming below that
>>>>> Neoaves and Galloanserae are sister groups, right?
>>>
>>> You don't answer this, but I soon figured out that I was right here.
>
>> You are partly right and partly wrong. The first part of your sentence
>> is wrong
>
> Sorry, I was absent-minded. I meant "neognaths" instead
> of Galloanserae in the first part.
>
> However, the possibility that there is a poorly resolved trichotomy
> between the three groups occurred to me just now. Recall the example of
> {theropods, sauropods, ornithischians} at the base of Dinosauria.
> Is it different with the base of Neornithes?

Yes, very different. There is zero doubt on that particular pair of nodes.

>>>>>>>> It's all implied by the tree if we suppose there are Cretaceous
>>>>>>>> presbyornithids and that presbyornithids are the sister group of
>>>>>>>> anatids. I wasn't referring to any other fossils.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem with that, as we saw in the first reply, is
>>>>> that the claim of there being Cretaceous presbyornithids
>>>>> is shaky. You need several generally accepted Cretaceous
>>>>> members of Galloanserae to make the claim that there
>>>>> were 7 lineages.
>>>
>>>> No, you only need one, as long as it's the right one. Either a
>>>> presbyornithid or an anatid would do.
>>>
>>> You are assuming some other features of the phylogenetic tree
>>> of the order Anseriformes ("waterfowl") that you aren't
>>> identifying here. What are they?
>
>> Just the usual (and well-confirmed) relationships.
>
> Why so tight-lipped? I suppose you are referring to the tree of Anseriformes
> in Wikipedia, but since when is Wikipedia an infallible guide to phylogeny?

I am not referring to the Wikipedia tree. The basal nodes of the
anseriform tree (excluding Presbyornis) have been confirmed by numerous
molecular and morphological analyses. It's (Animidae,(Anseranatidae,
Anatidae)). Again, there is no doubt on that point.

For example, see Hackett S.J., Kimball R.T., Reddy S., Bowie R.C.K.,
Braun E.L., Braun M.J., Chojnowski J.L., Cox W.A., Han K.-L., Harshman
J., Huddleston C.J., Marks B.D., Miglia K.J., Moore W.A., Sheldon F.H.,
Steadman D.W., Witt C.C., Yuri T. A phylogenomic study of birds reveals
their evolutionary history. Science 2008; 320:1763-1768.

Looking at the Wikipedia tree, I see that it's correct on everything up
until Plectropterus.

The basal nodes of Galliformes are equally well resolved.

>> Are you in any doubt?
>
> Yes, whenever you are as tight-lipped as this. Besides, it's bad form:
> what is sci.bio.paleontology for, if not for liberal conveying
> of information among participants? I say "among" instead of "between"
> because I think other regulars can benefit from a more informative
> answer to the question I asked. That's why I wrote "waterfowl" after
> "Anseriformes" because there might be some readers who are unfamiliar
> with the technical designations of bird orders.
>
>
> CONCLUDED in next reply, to be done not long after I see
> that this one has posted.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> Univ. of So. Carolina in Columbia
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

On 11/30/22 3:23 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 9:19:13 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 11/28/22 7:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 1:07:11 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 11/25/22 7:56 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, October 26, 2022 at 4:30:33 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/26/22 12:57 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 10:14:35 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/21/22 1:36 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 3:24:55 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/22 12:57 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>> there are at least three bird lineages
>>>>>>>>>>> surviving the K/P extinction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Again, at least 7: paleognaths, neoaves, galliforms, anhimids,
>>>>>>>>>> presbyornithids, anseranatidae, anatidae.
>
>
> <snip to get to where I left off in my first reply>
>
>
>>>> Here is a claim of a Cretaceous presbyornithid:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4785986/
>>>
>>> It sounds rather tentative, so not too encouraging of "only need one":
>>>
>>> "Although screamers (Anhimidae) may have evolved from presbyornithid-like birds, the uncertainty as to whether skeletal features shared by presbyornithids and anhimids are plesiomorphic within Anseriformes or indicative of a close relationship between the two cannot yet be resolved. In any case, recognition of W. tedfordi as a presbyornithid calls for a reassessment of the phylogenetic position of Presbyornithidae within Anseriformes."
>>>
>>> Sounds like your hypothesis is much more easily falsifiable than the hypothesis that a
>>> species of *Merychippus* is directly ancestral to *Equus* in the horse family.
>
>> ??
>
> Come on, John, the general theme of direct ancestry
> has been a perennial bone of contention between us.
> If you disagree in this instance, please explain your disagreement.

I truly don't know what you were trying to hint at there, so I don't
know whether I agree.

>>>> One might also add Gastornithidae and Pelagornithidae, though I'm not
>>>> sure whether those are both separate branches.
>>>
>>> Ah, one of my favorite bird families, those pelagornithids ["pseudotoothed birds"].
>>> The biggest one of all, with a wingspread over 20 feet, was found right here
>>> in South Carolina, while clearing land for the Charleston international airport.
>
> I'm glad you mentioned them. I found out a fascinating piece of information from the
> Wikipedia entry on them just now.
>
> "They were the dominant seabirds of most oceans throughout most of the Cenozoic, and modern humans apparently missed encountering them only by a tiny measure of evolutionary time: the last known pelagornithids were contemporaries of Homo habilis and the beginning of the history of technology.[3]"
>
> So near and yet so far. :(

Similar story for phorusrhacids.

>>> However, I saw no candidates for either family having Cretaceous members.
>>> And whether they are separate branches or the same seems irrelevant.
>>> You really have your work cut out for you to find an indirect phylogenetic
>>> tree way to make them survivors of the K-P extinction.
>
>> You still don't seem to understand how this works.
>
> I don't understand why you say this. You are ignoring the fact that Gastornis
> is considered by some to be within crown Anseriformes.

I'm not aware of that. Who?

> As for pelagornithids, the Wikipedia entry tentatively put them into Galloanserae,
> but then treated us to a long discussion that reads like a technical review paper
> of various proposed possibilities, including some "outliers" in Neoaves.

Sounds like it was written by a very old specialist. Better to look for
pubs with actual phylogenetic analyses in them, none of which I have
off-hand.

> >If we have a
>> Cretaceous example of a particular branch, all nodes below that branch
>> must also exist at that time. Given a Cretaceous presbyornithid, and
>> give tnat Presbyornithidae is the sister group of Anatidae, there must
>> be Cretaceous gastornithids and/or (depending on the tree)
>> pelagornithids, and anseranatids, anhimids, neoavians, and paleognaths.
>
> Too many assumptions here, in the light of my latest comments.
> Add to them the possibility that Mayr gave [see my first reply to your post],
> that presbyornithids are outside Anseriformes, and you could be down to
> paleognaths, neoaves, galliforms, presbyornithids, and a cladogenesis
> at some Paleocene member of total Anseriformes after anagenesis
> (or evolutionary stasis) from where presbyornithids split off from from Anseriformes.
>
> Five lineages, not seven.

Yes, that's possible, though whatever you are trying to say regarding
anagenesis is unclear. Just "anseriforms" would have been simpler and
more correct. So we're agreed that you don't need more than one
Cretaceous fossil to infer the Cretaceous existence of several other
groups. That's the point I was trying to get across. The meaning of
"several" depends on just where presbyornithids end up.

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 9:14:07 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> The Great K-T extinction spelled the doom of the giant sea reptiles, all dinosaurs
> (unless you count birds as dinosaurs), and many other groups of vertebrates and invertebrates.
> In fact, the damage caused by the asteroid that hit Yucatan was so great
> that no animal over 50 kilos is known to have survived.
>
> But some groups of birds and mammals did survive, including the remote
> ancestors
> of the four groups that have survived to this day: the neornithine birds and three groups of mammals:
> the placentals, the marsupials, and the monotremes.
>
> To keep this OP reasonably short, I will deal with the two most familiar of the four, the placentals and the modern birds.
>
> A 2013 _Science_ article [1] led to the general acceptance of the hypothesis that all living placentals
> have descended from a common ancestor that lived after the great K-T disaster.
>
> However, there are closely related eutherians [2] that also survived for a while, among
> whose descendants were the pantodonts, including *Coryphodon*, which was a bit larger than a tapir; and the tillodonts and taeniodonts. These groups died out during the Eocene, which ended almost halfway between the K-T disaster and our time.
>
> The case of birds is generally believed to be quite different: EVERY bird, living
> or extinct, that survived the K-T disaster is believed to be descended from the
> last common ancestor of living birds. However, there are some articles which
> hypothesize that there is one exception, a group of birds called the lithornids.
> More about them in my next post to this thread, some time tomorrow.
>
> [1] Maureen A. O'Leary et. al., "The Placental Mammal Ancestor and the Post–K-Pg Radiation of Placentals". Science. 339 (6120): 662–667.
>
> [2] Eutherians are the mammals, extant and extinct, that are more closely related to placentals than to marsupials.
> Similarly, metatherians are the mammals that are more closely related to marsupials than to placentals.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>
> PS The "Why?" at the end of the thread title is two-edged: why did some survive,
> and why did others, including some similar-seeming ones, perish?
- Not sure where to put this: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04181-7

On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 10:18:04 PM UTC-8, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 9:14:07 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The Great K-T extinction spelled the doom of the giant sea reptiles, all dinosaurs
> > (unless you count birds as dinosaurs), and many other groups of vertebrates and invertebrates.
> > In fact, the damage caused by the asteroid that hit Yucatan was so great
> > that no animal over 50 kilos is known to have survived.
> >
> > But some groups of birds and mammals did survive, including the remote
> > ancestors
> > of the four groups that have survived to this day: the neornithine birds and three groups of mammals:
> > the placentals, the marsupials, and the monotremes.
> >
> > To keep this OP reasonably short, I will deal with the two most familiar of the four, the placentals and the modern birds.
> >
> > A 2013 _Science_ article [1] led to the general acceptance of the hypothesis that all living placentals
> > have descended from a common ancestor that lived after the great K-T disaster.
> >
> > However, there are closely related eutherians [2] that also survived for a while, among
> > whose descendants were the pantodonts, including *Coryphodon*, which was a bit larger than a tapir; and the tillodonts and taeniodonts. These groups died out during the Eocene, which ended almost halfway between the K-T disaster and our time.
> >
> > The case of birds is generally believed to be quite different: EVERY bird, living
> > or extinct, that survived the K-T disaster is believed to be descended from the
> > last common ancestor of living birds. However, there are some articles which
> > hypothesize that there is one exception, a group of birds called the lithornids.
> > More about them in my next post to this thread, some time tomorrow.
> >
> > [1] Maureen A. O'Leary et. al., "The Placental Mammal Ancestor and the Post–K-Pg Radiation of Placentals". Science. 339 (6120): 662–667.
> >
> > [2] Eutherians are the mammals, extant and extinct, that are more closely related to placentals than to marsupials.
> > Similarly, metatherians are the mammals that are more closely related to marsupials than to placentals.
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
> > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > University of South Carolina
> > http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> >
> > PS The "Why?" at the end of the thread title is two-edged: why did some survive,
> > and why did others, including some similar-seeming ones, perish?
> -
> Not sure where to put this: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04181-7
Good catch! The actual article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05445-y

On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 7:49:38 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 11/30/22 3:23 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 9:19:13 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 11/28/22 7:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 1:07:11 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 11/25/22 7:56 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, October 26, 2022 at 4:30:33 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/26/22 12:57 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 10:14:35 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 10/21/22 1:36 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 3:24:55 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/22 12:57 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>> there are at least three bird lineages
> >>>>>>>>>>> surviving the K/P extinction.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Again, at least 7: paleognaths, neoaves, galliforms, anhimids,
> >>>>>>>>>> presbyornithids, anseranatidae, anatidae.
> >
> >
> > <snip to get to where I left off in my first reply>
> >
> >
> >>>> Here is a claim of a Cretaceous presbyornithid:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4785986/
> >>>
> >>> It sounds rather tentative, so not too encouraging of "only need one":
> >>>
> >>> "Although screamers (Anhimidae) may have evolved from presbyornithid-like birds, the uncertainty as to whether skeletal features shared by presbyornithids and anhimids are plesiomorphic within Anseriformes or indicative of a close relationship between the two cannot yet be resolved. In any case, recognition of W. tedfordi as a presbyornithid calls for a reassessment of the phylogenetic position of Presbyornithidae within Anseriformes."
> >>>
> >>> Sounds like your hypothesis is much more easily falsifiable than the hypothesis that a
> >>> species of *Merychippus* is directly ancestral to *Equus* in the horse family.
> >
> >> ??
> >
> > Come on, John, the general theme of direct ancestry
> > has been a perennial bone of contention between us.
> > If you disagree in this instance, please explain your disagreement.

> I truly don't know what you were trying to hint at there, so I don't
> know whether I agree.

I was not "hinting". What part of "your hypothesis is much more easily falsifiable than"
don't you understand? We have essentially complete fossils of Merychippus and
can study Equus to our heart's content.

Compare that to the evidence that *Teviornis gobiensis* was a Cretaceous presbyornithid.
Mayr's 2017 book doesn't even mention the genus nor the 2016 paper that we have been
discussing above. Neither does Wikipedia, which only cites two papers on the genus,
in 2002 and 2004. Do you know of any citations of it in the peer-reviewed literature?
Or any more recent evidence for its tentative conclusion?

It's an awfully thin peg to hang 7 separate lineages on.

> >>>> One might also add Gastornithidae and Pelagornithidae, though I'm not
> >>>> sure whether those are both separate branches.
> >>>
> >>> Ah, one of my favorite bird families, those pelagornithids ["pseudotoothed birds"].
> >>> The biggest one of all, with a wingspread over 20 feet, was found right here
> >>> in South Carolina, while clearing land for the Charleston international airport.
> >
> > I'm glad you mentioned them. I found out a fascinating piece of information from the
> > Wikipedia entry on them just now.
> >
> > "They were the dominant seabirds of most oceans throughout most of the Cenozoic, and modern humans apparently missed encountering them only by a tiny measure of evolutionary time: the last known pelagornithids were contemporaries of Homo habilis and the beginning of the history of technology.[3]"
> >
> > So near and yet so far. :(

> Similar story for phorusrhacids.

Even more so: put Homo erectus there. However, the much more recent claims of ca.100 kya
and even 18 kya are not well supported according to the entry on them.
The summary in the box at upper right should have a question mark added after 0.1 Ma.
Another case of discordant statements on the same Wiki page.

> >>> However, I saw no candidates for either family having Cretaceous members.
> >>> And whether they are separate branches or the same seems irrelevant.
> >>> You really have your work cut out for you to find an indirect phylogenetic
> >>> tree way to make them survivors of the K-P extinction.
> >
> >> You still don't seem to understand how this works.
> >
> > I don't understand why you say this. You are ignoring the fact that Gastornis
> > is considered by some to be within crown Anseriformes.

> I'm not aware of that. Who?

Read the Wikipedia entry.

> > As for pelagornithids, the Wikipedia entry tentatively put them into Galloanserae,
> > but then treated us to a long discussion that reads like a technical review paper
> > of various proposed possibilities, including some "outliers" in Neoaves..

> Sounds like it was written by a very old specialist. Better to look for
> pubs with actual phylogenetic analyses in them, none of which I have
> off-hand.

Please let us know when you find any. But keep in mind that the
reviewer cites a number of them already.

> > >If we have a
> >> Cretaceous example of a particular branch, all nodes below that branch
> >> must also exist at that time. Given a Cretaceous presbyornithid, and
> >> give tnat Presbyornithidae is the sister group of Anatidae, there must
> >> be Cretaceous gastornithids and/or (depending on the tree)
> >> pelagornithids, and anseranatids, anhimids, neoavians, and paleognaths..
> >
> > Too many assumptions here, in the light of my latest comments.
> > Add to them the possibility that Mayr gave [see my first reply to your post],
> > that presbyornithids are outside Anseriformes, and you could be down to
> > paleognaths, neoaves, galliforms, presbyornithids, and a cladogenesis
> > at some Paleocene member of total Anseriformes after anagenesis
> > (or evolutionary stasis) from where presbyornithids split off from from Anseriformes.
> >
> > Five lineages, not seven.

> Yes, that's possible, though whatever you are trying to say regarding
> anagenesis is unclear.

One or more speciations without branching. The old species may
linger on for a while, but in the absence of fossils for side branches,
there is no evidence for cladogenesis.

We're talking about lineages, not individual taxa.

> Just "anseriforms" would have been simpler and
> more correct.

How so? doesn't it mean the same thing as Anseriformes?

> So we're agreed that you don't need more than one
> Cretaceous fossil to infer the Cretaceous existence of several other
> groups.

Of course, but the fossil involved in this case is fragmentary.

I've asked Trevor Worthy last night (my time; this morning his time)
in email about how the 2016 paper has fared since then, and I hope he answers before long.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
U. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 1:18:04 AM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 9:14:07 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> > PS The "Why?" at the end of the thread title is two-edged: why did some survive,
> > and why did others, including some similar-seeming ones, perish?
> -
> Not sure where to put this:

"67-million-year-old fossil upends bird evolutionary tree"
> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04181-7

It's perfect for this thread. It speaks to both halves of the title,
by the way it upends the evolutionary tree and has a datum for "Why":
a bird that did not survive and may have perished
in the asteroid-related disaster. I'll be speaking about
this "Why" today and save the details about the upending on
Monday. It is relevant to which lineages of birds survived the disaster.

Before I go on: even if you are rushed for time, if the title of the article
gives a good hint for what it's about, it's worth a few seconds
to highlight, copy, and paste. Here, with such a dramatic title,
it's very worthwhile. So I put it in for you.

Frosting on the cake: you've got a real scoop as far as s.b.p. is concerned..
As they used to say before the internet: it's hot off the presses.
It's dated 30 November 2022, day before yesterday.

Even more: although the title is dramatic, there's no hype.
I'm fortunate to have learned enough details about the base
of the neornithine tree in just the last month to fully appreciate this.
I'll have more to say on this on Monday, after my usual weekend posting break.

For now, back to that datum. Here is the research article
for which the one you've scooped is the announcement for the general public..

Cretaceous ornithurine supports a neognathous crown bird ancestor
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05445-y

Here is where it speaks to whether its extinction was due to the K-T disaster, and why:

" thus far, *Janavis* constitutes the only confidently identified and non-fragmentary Maastrichtian ichthyornithine known, and its large size and presumed extinction at the end-Cretaceous are congruent with hypothesized selection favouring relatively small-bodied birds across the Cretaceous–Paleogene (K–Pg) boundary28,29."

Not just Maastrichtian, but Latest Maastrichtian. [1] As for the talk about size,
I keep reading that no animal over 50 kilos is known to have survived. I also believe
that most animals over 10 kilos had serious trouble foraging for enough food to keep alive
after the asteroid struck. *Janavis* is nowhere near this big -- it's estimated to
have been between 1 and 1.5 kilos -- but it's still a lot bigger than its iconic relative, *Ichthyornis*.
Moreover:
"Indeed, Janavis greatly outweighs the only other co-occurring avialan known from the Maastricht Formation: the early neornithine Asteriornis maastrichtensis, the holotype of which is estimated to have weighed in the range of 395 g (ref. 27)."

[1] The Maastrichtian is the last big division of the Cretaceous. For a decade or two, I'd get goose
bumps every time I came across the word "Maastrichthian" because I knew what it portended.
If the link Erik gave us works for you, take a look at Fig.1 [it can be magnified] and look to the
right to see *Janavis* with a line to it that ends at the very end of the Maastrichthian.

Appropriately, the holotype is in Natuurhistorisch Museum Maastricht.

I close this post with a comment about the title of the research paper,
"Cretaceous ornithurine supports a neognathous crown bird ancestor"

Although it may seem prosaic compared to the one for the paper you scooped,
it actually arouses my interest more because of all the information it conveys.

Orniturine birds include neornithine (crown) birds, ichthyornithids, hesperornithids,
and a handful of birds that are, with one exception, less closely related to crown birds.
So *Janavis* can be expected to provide valuable information about the base
of the crown birds. The rest of the title speaks volumes about the "upending"
of the base, and with it the tree, to a trained eye, as I'll explain on Monday
unless someone beats me to it.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
U. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

On 12/2/22 11:25 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 7:49:38 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 11/30/22 3:23 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 9:19:13 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 11/28/22 7:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 1:07:11 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/25/22 7:56 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 26, 2022 at 4:30:33 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/26/22 12:57 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 10:14:35 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/22 1:36 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 3:24:55 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/22 12:57 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are at least three bird lineages
>>>>>>>>>>>>> surviving the K/P extinction.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, at least 7: paleognaths, neoaves, galliforms, anhimids,
>>>>>>>>>>>> presbyornithids, anseranatidae, anatidae.
>>>
>>>
>>> <snip to get to where I left off in my first reply>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Here is a claim of a Cretaceous presbyornithid:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4785986/
>>>>>
>>>>> It sounds rather tentative, so not too encouraging of "only need one":
>>>>>
>>>>> "Although screamers (Anhimidae) may have evolved from presbyornithid-like birds, the uncertainty as to whether skeletal features shared by presbyornithids and anhimids are plesiomorphic within Anseriformes or indicative of a close relationship between the two cannot yet be resolved. In any case, recognition of W. tedfordi as a presbyornithid calls for a reassessment of the phylogenetic position of Presbyornithidae within Anseriformes."
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like your hypothesis is much more easily falsifiable than the hypothesis that a
>>>>> species of *Merychippus* is directly ancestral to *Equus* in the horse family.
>>>
>>>> ??
>>>
>>> Come on, John, the general theme of direct ancestry
>>> has been a perennial bone of contention between us.
>>> If you disagree in this instance, please explain your disagreement.
>
>> I truly don't know what you were trying to hint at there, so I don't
>> know whether I agree.
>
> I was not "hinting".

Still don't know what you were trying to say. What does any of this have
to do with Merychippus?

> What part of "your hypothesis is much more easily falsifiable than"
> don't you understand? We have essentially complete fossils of Merychippus and
> can study Equus to our heart's content.
>
> Compare that to the evidence that *Teviornis gobiensis* was a Cretaceous presbyornithid.
> Mayr's 2017 book doesn't even mention the genus nor the 2016 paper that we have been
> discussing above. Neither does Wikipedia, which only cites two papers on the genus,
> in 2002 and 2004. Do you know of any citations of it in the peer-reviewed literature?
> Or any more recent evidence for its tentative conclusion?
>
> It's an awfully thin peg to hang 7 separate lineages on.

Molecular studies calibrated using Cenozoic fossils have more. So it
seems a conservative number.

>>>>>> One might also add Gastornithidae and Pelagornithidae, though I'm not
>>>>>> sure whether those are both separate branches.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, one of my favorite bird families, those pelagornithids ["pseudotoothed birds"].
>>>>> The biggest one of all, with a wingspread over 20 feet, was found right here
>>>>> in South Carolina, while clearing land for the Charleston international airport.
>>>
>>> I'm glad you mentioned them. I found out a fascinating piece of information from the
>>> Wikipedia entry on them just now.
>>>
>>> "They were the dominant seabirds of most oceans throughout most of the Cenozoic, and modern humans apparently missed encountering them only by a tiny measure of evolutionary time: the last known pelagornithids were contemporaries of Homo habilis and the beginning of the history of technology.[3]"
>>>
>>> So near and yet so far. :(
>
>> Similar story for phorusrhacids.
>
> Even more so: put Homo erectus there. However, the much more recent claims of ca.100 kya
> and even 18 kya are not well supported according to the entry on them.
> The summary in the box at upper right should have a question mark added after 0.1 Ma.
> Another case of discordant statements on the same Wiki page.
>
>
>>>>> However, I saw no candidates for either family having Cretaceous members.
>>>>> And whether they are separate branches or the same seems irrelevant.
>>>>> You really have your work cut out for you to find an indirect phylogenetic
>>>>> tree way to make them survivors of the K-P extinction.
>>>
>>>> You still don't seem to understand how this works.
>>>
>>> I don't understand why you say this. You are ignoring the fact that Gastornis
>>> is considered by some to be within crown Anseriformes.
>
>> I'm not aware of that. Who?
>
> Read the Wikipedia entry.

Or you could just show the citation for that claim. Then I wouldn't have
to guess which Wikipedia entry you meant.

>>> As for pelagornithids, the Wikipedia entry tentatively put them into Galloanserae,
>>> but then treated us to a long discussion that reads like a technical review paper
>>> of various proposed possibilities, including some "outliers" in Neoaves.
>
>> Sounds like it was written by a very old specialist. Better to look for
>> pubs with actual phylogenetic analyses in them, none of which I have
>> off-hand.
>
> Please let us know when you find any. But keep in mind that the
> reviewer cites a number of them already.

No problem, then.

>>>> If we have a
>>>> Cretaceous example of a particular branch, all nodes below that branch
>>>> must also exist at that time. Given a Cretaceous presbyornithid, and
>>>> give tnat Presbyornithidae is the sister group of Anatidae, there must
>>>> be Cretaceous gastornithids and/or (depending on the tree)
>>>> pelagornithids, and anseranatids, anhimids, neoavians, and paleognaths.
>>>
>>> Too many assumptions here, in the light of my latest comments.
>>> Add to them the possibility that Mayr gave [see my first reply to your post],
>>> that presbyornithids are outside Anseriformes, and you could be down to
>>> paleognaths, neoaves, galliforms, presbyornithids, and a cladogenesis
>>> at some Paleocene member of total Anseriformes after anagenesis
>>> (or evolutionary stasis) from where presbyornithids split off from from Anseriformes.
>>>
>>> Five lineages, not seven.
>
>> Yes, that's possible, though whatever you are trying to say regarding
>> anagenesis is unclear.
>
> One or more speciations without branching. The old species may
> linger on for a while, but in the absence of fossils for side branches,
> there is no evidence for cladogenesis.

That's not what "speciation" means. Anagenesis is just evolution within
a lineage. Of course there is a conflict of species concepts here; the
morphospecies often used by paleontologists are not species as commonly
understood by those who study speciation.

> We're talking about lineages, not individual taxa.

Not clear on what that was supposed to mean either.

>> Just "anseriforms" would have been simpler and
>> more correct.
>
> How so? doesn't it mean the same thing as Anseriformes?

I'm saying you could have left out all the stuff about "after
anagenesis, etc.

>> So we're agreed that you don't need more than one
>> Cretaceous fossil to infer the Cretaceous existence of several other
>> groups.
>
> Of course, but the fossil involved in this case is fragmentary.

Does that prevent it from being diagnostic?

> I've asked Trevor Worthy last night (my time; this morning his time)
> in email about how the 2016 paper has fared since then, and I hope he answers before long.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> U. of South Carolina at Columbia
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

On 12/1/22 10:18 PM, Daud Deden wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 9:14:07 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>> The Great K-T extinction spelled the doom of the giant sea reptiles, all dinosaurs
>> (unless you count birds as dinosaurs), and many other groups of vertebrates and invertebrates.
>> In fact, the damage caused by the asteroid that hit Yucatan was so great
>> that no animal over 50 kilos is known to have survived.
>>
>> But some groups of birds and mammals did survive, including the remote
>> ancestors
>> of the four groups that have survived to this day: the neornithine birds and three groups of mammals:
>> the placentals, the marsupials, and the monotremes.
>>
>> To keep this OP reasonably short, I will deal with the two most familiar of the four, the placentals and the modern birds.
>>
>> A 2013 _Science_ article [1] led to the general acceptance of the hypothesis that all living placentals
>> have descended from a common ancestor that lived after the great K-T disaster.
>>
>> However, there are closely related eutherians [2] that also survived for a while, among
>> whose descendants were the pantodonts, including *Coryphodon*, which was a bit larger than a tapir; and the tillodonts and taeniodonts. These groups died out during the Eocene, which ended almost halfway between the K-T disaster and our time.
>>
>> The case of birds is generally believed to be quite different: EVERY bird, living
>> or extinct, that survived the K-T disaster is believed to be descended from the
>> last common ancestor of living birds. However, there are some articles which
>> hypothesize that there is one exception, a group of birds called the lithornids.
>> More about them in my next post to this thread, some time tomorrow.
>>
>> [1] Maureen A. O'Leary et. al., "The Placental Mammal Ancestor and the Post–K-Pg Radiation of Placentals". Science. 339 (6120): 662–667.
>>
>> [2] Eutherians are the mammals, extant and extinct, that are more closely related to placentals than to marsupials.
>> Similarly, metatherians are the mammals that are more closely related to marsupials than to placentals.
>>
>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
>> University of South Carolina
>> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>>
>> PS The "Why?" at the end of the thread title is two-edged: why did some survive,
>> and why did others, including some similar-seeming ones, perish?
> -
> Not sure where to put this: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04181-7

As usual in science journalism, the title (at least) is hype. This
discovery has no effect on the evolutionary tree, just on the character
state at the base of the tree. Paleognaths and neognaths are still each
monophyletic. No change there.

On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 7:52:41 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 12/1/22 10:18 PM, Daud Deden wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 9:14:07 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> The Great K-T extinction spelled the doom of the giant sea reptiles, all dinosaurs
> >> (unless you count birds as dinosaurs), and many other groups of vertebrates and invertebrates.
> >> In fact, the damage caused by the asteroid that hit Yucatan was so great
> >> that no animal over 50 kilos is known to have survived.
> >>
> >> But some groups of birds and mammals did survive, including the remote
> >> ancestors
> >> of the four groups that have survived to this day: the neornithine birds and three groups of mammals:
> >> the placentals, the marsupials, and the monotremes.
> >>
> >> To keep this OP reasonably short, I will deal with the two most familiar of the four, the placentals and the modern birds.
> >>
> >> A 2013 _Science_ article [1] led to the general acceptance of the hypothesis that all living placentals
> >> have descended from a common ancestor that lived after the great K-T disaster.
> >>
> >> However, there are closely related eutherians [2] that also survived for a while, among
> >> whose descendants were the pantodonts, including *Coryphodon*, which was a bit larger than a tapir; and the tillodonts and taeniodonts. These groups died out during the Eocene, which ended almost halfway between the K-T disaster and our time.
> >>
> >> The case of birds is generally believed to be quite different: EVERY bird, living
> >> or extinct, that survived the K-T disaster is believed to be descended from the
> >> last common ancestor of living birds. However, there are some articles which
> >> hypothesize that there is one exception, a group of birds called the lithornids.
> >> More about them in my next post to this thread, some time tomorrow.
> >>
> >> [1] Maureen A. O'Leary et. al., "The Placental Mammal Ancestor and the Post–K-Pg Radiation of Placentals". Science. 339 (6120): 662–667.
> >>
> >> [2] Eutherians are the mammals, extant and extinct, that are more closely related to placentals than to marsupials.
> >> Similarly, metatherians are the mammals that are more closely related to marsupials than to placentals.
> >>
> >>
> >> Peter Nyikos
> >> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> >> University of South Carolina
> >> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> >>
> >> PS The "Why?" at the end of the thread title is two-edged: why did some survive,
> >> and why did others, including some similar-seeming ones, perish?
> > -
> > Not sure where to put this: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04181-7
> As usual in science journalism, the title (at least) is hype. This
> discovery has no effect on the evolutionary tree, just on the character
> state at the base of the tree. Paleognaths and neognaths are still each
> monophyletic. No change there.

OT streamlined theropod natovenator no wings
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-04119-9

Short on time, I address both of the first two posts listed below:

On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 8:08:42 PM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 7:52:41 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 12/1/22 10:18 PM, Daud Deden wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 9:14:07 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> The Great K-T extinction spelled the doom of the giant sea reptiles, all dinosaurs
> > >> (unless you count birds as dinosaurs), and many other groups of vertebrates and invertebrates.
> > >> In fact, the damage caused by the asteroid that hit Yucatan was so great
> > >> that no animal over 50 kilos is known to have survived.
> > >>
> > >> But some groups of birds and mammals did survive, including the remote
> > >> ancestors
> > >> of the four groups that have survived to this day: the neornithine birds and three groups of mammals:
> > >> the placentals, the marsupials, and the monotremes.
> > >>
> > >> To keep this OP reasonably short, I will deal with the two most familiar of the four, the placentals and the modern birds.
> > >>
> > >> A 2013 _Science_ article [1] led to the general acceptance of the hypothesis that all living placentals
> > >> have descended from a common ancestor that lived after the great K-T disaster.
> > >>
> > >> However, there are closely related eutherians [2] that also survived for a while, among
> > >> whose descendants were the pantodonts, including *Coryphodon*, which was a bit larger than a tapir; and the tillodonts and taeniodonts. These groups died out during the Eocene, which ended almost halfway between the K-T disaster and our time.
> > >>
> > >> The case of birds is generally believed to be quite different: EVERY bird, living
> > >> or extinct, that survived the K-T disaster is believed to be descended from the
> > >> last common ancestor of living birds. However, there are some articles which
> > >> hypothesize that there is one exception, a group of birds called the lithornids.
> > >> More about them in my next post to this thread, some time tomorrow.
> > >>
> > >> [1] Maureen A. O'Leary et. al., "The Placental Mammal Ancestor and the Post–K-Pg Radiation of Placentals". Science. 339 (6120): 662–667.
> > >>
> > >> [2] Eutherians are the mammals, extant and extinct, that are more closely related to placentals than to marsupials.
> > >> Similarly, metatherians are the mammals that are more closely related to marsupials than to placentals.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Peter Nyikos
> > >> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > >> University of South Carolina
> > >> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> > >>
> > >> PS The "Why?" at the end of the thread title is two-edged: why did some survive,
> > >> and why did others, including some similar-seeming ones, perish?
> > > -
> > > Not sure where to put this: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04181-7

> > As usual in science journalism, the title (at least) is hype.

I don't know why John said this. Chances are he didn't look at the research article
that Erik linked for us. I skimmed it for less than a minute, and the following
leaped out at me:

"Nonetheless, the notably galloanseran-like pterygoid of Janavis, together with recent evidence of a neognath-like hemipterygoid–palatine complex in Ichthyornis12, rejects the hypothesis that the plesiomorphic condition of the neornithine palate was palaeognathous. Instead, these observations support the hypothesis that the extant palaeognathous condition is derived and convergent with the superficially similar morphologies found in stemward avialans and non-avialan theropods. Indeed, the pronounced morphometric disparity among extant palaeognath pterygoids (Fig. 3 and Extended Data Figs. 8 and 9) further emphasizes that the ‘palaeognathous condition’ may be little more than an anachronistic conceptual wastebasket, oversimplifying the substantial morphological variability within this taxonomically depauperate extant clade, and perhaps reflecting outdated assumptions that palaeognaths represent ‘primitive avian stock’ carrying over from the early days of systematic ornithology4."

--"Cretaceous ornithurine supports a neognathous crown bird ancestor"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05445-y

Why, the very title should have made John think twice before posting the following:

> > This discovery has no effect on the evolutionary tree, just on the character
> > state at the base of the tree. Paleognaths and neognaths are still each
> > monophyletic. No change there.

Unfortunately for John, Erik did not post the title, only the nondescriptive url.
And so we have this priceless irony.

> OT streamlined theropod natovenator no wings
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-04119-9

It is OT for this thread, but perfectly on-topic for sci.bio.paleontology,
and another fine catch by you, Daud. Why didn't you begin another thread with it?
There are so few threads active here, another one is always welcome when the
article talked about in the OP is so interesting.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
U. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

On 12/2/22 5:53 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> Short on time, I address both of the first two posts listed below:
>
> On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 8:08:42 PM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 7:52:41 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 12/1/22 10:18 PM, Daud Deden wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 9:14:07 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> The Great K-T extinction spelled the doom of the giant sea reptiles, all dinosaurs
>>>>> (unless you count birds as dinosaurs), and many other groups of vertebrates and invertebrates.
>>>>> In fact, the damage caused by the asteroid that hit Yucatan was so great
>>>>> that no animal over 50 kilos is known to have survived.
>>>>>
>>>>> But some groups of birds and mammals did survive, including the remote
>>>>> ancestors
>>>>> of the four groups that have survived to this day: the neornithine birds and three groups of mammals:
>>>>> the placentals, the marsupials, and the monotremes.
>>>>>
>>>>> To keep this OP reasonably short, I will deal with the two most familiar of the four, the placentals and the modern birds.
>>>>>
>>>>> A 2013 _Science_ article [1] led to the general acceptance of the hypothesis that all living placentals
>>>>> have descended from a common ancestor that lived after the great K-T disaster.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, there are closely related eutherians [2] that also survived for a while, among
>>>>> whose descendants were the pantodonts, including *Coryphodon*, which was a bit larger than a tapir; and the tillodonts and taeniodonts. These groups died out during the Eocene, which ended almost halfway between the K-T disaster and our time.
>>>>>
>>>>> The case of birds is generally believed to be quite different: EVERY bird, living
>>>>> or extinct, that survived the K-T disaster is believed to be descended from the
>>>>> last common ancestor of living birds. However, there are some articles which
>>>>> hypothesize that there is one exception, a group of birds called the lithornids.
>>>>> More about them in my next post to this thread, some time tomorrow.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] Maureen A. O'Leary et. al., "The Placental Mammal Ancestor and the Post–K-Pg Radiation of Placentals". Science. 339 (6120): 662–667.
>>>>>
>>>>> [2] Eutherians are the mammals, extant and extinct, that are more closely related to placentals than to marsupials.
>>>>> Similarly, metatherians are the mammals that are more closely related to marsupials than to placentals.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
>>>>> University of South Carolina
>>>>> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>>>>>
>>>>> PS The "Why?" at the end of the thread title is two-edged: why did some survive,
>>>>> and why did others, including some similar-seeming ones, perish?
>>>> -
>>>> Not sure where to put this: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04181-7
>
>>> As usual in science journalism, the title (at least) is hype.
>
> I don't know why John said this.
And I don't know why Peter chooses to reply at second-hand rather than
to the actual post he's replying to. If only he would stop.
> Chances are he didn't look at the research article
> that Erik linked for us. I skimmed it for less than a minute, and the following
> leaped out at me:
>
> "Nonetheless, the notably galloanseran-like pterygoid of Janavis, together with recent evidence of a neognath-like hemipterygoid–palatine complex in Ichthyornis12, rejects the hypothesis that the plesiomorphic condition of the neornithine palate was palaeognathous. Instead, these observations support the hypothesis that the extant palaeognathous condition is derived and convergent with the superficially similar morphologies found in stemward avialans and non-avialan theropods. Indeed, the pronounced morphometric disparity among extant palaeognath pterygoids (Fig. 3 and Extended Data Figs. 8 and 9) further emphasizes that the ‘palaeognathous condition’ may be little more than an anachronistic conceptual wastebasket, oversimplifying the substantial morphological variability within this taxonomically depauperate extant clade, and perhaps reflecting outdated assumptions that palaeognaths represent ‘primitive avian stock’ carrying over from the early days of systematic ornithology4."
>
> --"Cretaceous ornithurine supports a neognathous crown bird ancestor"
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05445-y
>
>
> Why, the very title should have made John think twice before posting the following:
>
>>> This discovery has no effect on the evolutionary tree, just on the character
>>> state at the base of the tree. Paleognaths and neognaths are still each
>>> monophyletic. No change there.
>
> Unfortunately for John, Erik did not post the title, only the nondescriptive url.
> And so we have this priceless irony.
I'm still unaware of the irony, which you probably believe, wrongly, to
be self-evident. I'm left to guess that you mistake hypotheses of
character evolution on the tree for the tree itself. Again, even if we
find that a character at the base of Neornithes (Aves) is other than
previously thought, that doesn't necessarily change the relationships
among taxa, and it most certainly does not in the present case.
"Primitive avian stock" is definitely an anachronistic and outdated
concept. I suspect that you don't understand what the authors were
saying there.

On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 5:53:31 PM UTC-8, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> Short on time, I address both of the first two posts listed below:
> On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 8:08:42 PM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 7:52:41 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> > > On 12/1/22 10:18 PM, Daud Deden wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 9:14:07 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > >> The Great K-T extinction spelled the doom of the giant sea reptiles, all dinosaurs
> > > >> (unless you count birds as dinosaurs), and many other groups of vertebrates and invertebrates.
> > > >> In fact, the damage caused by the asteroid that hit Yucatan was so great
> > > >> that no animal over 50 kilos is known to have survived.
> > > >>
> > > >> But some groups of birds and mammals did survive, including the remote
> > > >> ancestors
> > > >> of the four groups that have survived to this day: the neornithine birds and three groups of mammals:
> > > >> the placentals, the marsupials, and the monotremes.
> > > >>
> > > >> To keep this OP reasonably short, I will deal with the two most familiar of the four, the placentals and the modern birds.
> > > >>
> > > >> A 2013 _Science_ article [1] led to the general acceptance of the hypothesis that all living placentals
> > > >> have descended from a common ancestor that lived after the great K-T disaster.
> > > >>
> > > >> However, there are closely related eutherians [2] that also survived for a while, among
> > > >> whose descendants were the pantodonts, including *Coryphodon*, which was a bit larger than a tapir; and the tillodonts and taeniodonts. These groups died out during the Eocene, which ended almost halfway between the K-T disaster and our time.
> > > >>
> > > >> The case of birds is generally believed to be quite different: EVERY bird, living
> > > >> or extinct, that survived the K-T disaster is believed to be descended from the
> > > >> last common ancestor of living birds. However, there are some articles which
> > > >> hypothesize that there is one exception, a group of birds called the lithornids.
> > > >> More about them in my next post to this thread, some time tomorrow..
> > > >>
> > > >> [1] Maureen A. O'Leary et. al., "The Placental Mammal Ancestor and the Post–K-Pg Radiation of Placentals". Science. 339 (6120): 662–667.
> > > >>
> > > >> [2] Eutherians are the mammals, extant and extinct, that are more closely related to placentals than to marsupials.
> > > >> Similarly, metatherians are the mammals that are more closely related to marsupials than to placentals.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Peter Nyikos
> > > >> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > > >> University of South Carolina
> > > >> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> > > >>
> > > >> PS The "Why?" at the end of the thread title is two-edged: why did some survive,
> > > >> and why did others, including some similar-seeming ones, perish?
> > > > -
> > > > Not sure where to put this: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04181-7
>
> > > As usual in science journalism, the title (at least) is hype.
> I don't know why John said this. Chances are he didn't look at the research article
> that Erik linked for us. I skimmed it for less than a minute, and the following
> leaped out at me:
>
> "Nonetheless, the notably galloanseran-like pterygoid of Janavis, together with recent evidence of a neognath-like hemipterygoid–palatine complex in Ichthyornis12, rejects the hypothesis that the plesiomorphic condition of the neornithine palate was palaeognathous. Instead, these observations support the hypothesis that the extant palaeognathous condition is derived and convergent with the superficially similar morphologies found in stemward avialans and non-avialan theropods. Indeed, the pronounced morphometric disparity among extant palaeognath pterygoids (Fig. 3 and Extended Data Figs. 8 and 9) further emphasizes that the ‘palaeognathous condition’ may be little more than an anachronistic conceptual wastebasket, oversimplifying the substantial morphological variability within this taxonomically depauperate extant clade, and perhaps reflecting outdated assumptions that palaeognaths represent ‘primitive avian stock’ carrying over from the early days of systematic ornithology4."
>
> --"Cretaceous ornithurine supports a neognathous crown bird ancestor"
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05445-y
>
>
> Why, the very title should have made John think twice before posting the following:
> > > This discovery has no effect on the evolutionary tree, just on the character
> > > state at the base of the tree. Paleognaths and neognaths are still each
> > > monophyletic. No change there.
> Unfortunately for John, Erik did not post the title, only the nondescriptive url.
> And so we have this priceless irony.

What priceless irony? Maybe you should try reading the article for a little more than
a minute, and maybe even think a bit about what the "message" is. Hint: consider
what the term ‘palaeognathous condition’ is, and what its phylogentic implications are.

The reference given for the "early days of systematic ornithology" is itself a glimpse of
good old-time phylogeny circa 1948, with references going back as far as Huxley
himself (1867). Thirty pages of exquisite anaysis of the bony palate of paleognaths.

On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 10:20:14 AM UTC-8, erik simpson wrote:
> On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 5:53:31 PM UTC-8, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Short on time, I address both of the first two posts listed below:
> > On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 8:08:42 PM UTC-5, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 7:52:41 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> > > > On 12/1/22 10:18 PM, Daud Deden wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 9:14:07 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >> The Great K-T extinction spelled the doom of the giant sea reptiles, all dinosaurs
> > > > >> (unless you count birds as dinosaurs), and many other groups of vertebrates and invertebrates.
> > > > >> In fact, the damage caused by the asteroid that hit Yucatan was so great
> > > > >> that no animal over 50 kilos is known to have survived.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> But some groups of birds and mammals did survive, including the remote
> > > > >> ancestors
> > > > >> of the four groups that have survived to this day: the neornithine birds and three groups of mammals:
> > > > >> the placentals, the marsupials, and the monotremes.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> To keep this OP reasonably short, I will deal with the two most familiar of the four, the placentals and the modern birds.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> A 2013 _Science_ article [1] led to the general acceptance of the hypothesis that all living placentals
> > > > >> have descended from a common ancestor that lived after the great K-T disaster.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> However, there are closely related eutherians [2] that also survived for a while, among
> > > > >> whose descendants were the pantodonts, including *Coryphodon*, which was a bit larger than a tapir; and the tillodonts and taeniodonts. These groups died out during the Eocene, which ended almost halfway between the K-T disaster and our time.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The case of birds is generally believed to be quite different: EVERY bird, living
> > > > >> or extinct, that survived the K-T disaster is believed to be descended from the
> > > > >> last common ancestor of living birds. However, there are some articles which
> > > > >> hypothesize that there is one exception, a group of birds called the lithornids.
> > > > >> More about them in my next post to this thread, some time tomorrow.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [1] Maureen A. O'Leary et. al., "The Placental Mammal Ancestor and the Post–K-Pg Radiation of Placentals". Science. 339 (6120): 662–667.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [2] Eutherians are the mammals, extant and extinct, that are more closely related to placentals than to marsupials.
> > > > >> Similarly, metatherians are the mammals that are more closely related to marsupials than to placentals.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Peter Nyikos
> > > > >> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > > > >> University of South Carolina
> > > > >> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> > > > >>
> > > > >> PS The "Why?" at the end of the thread title is two-edged: why did some survive,
> > > > >> and why did others, including some similar-seeming ones, perish?
> > > > > -
> > > > > Not sure where to put this: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04181-7
> >
> > > > As usual in science journalism, the title (at least) is hype.
> > I don't know why John said this. Chances are he didn't look at the research article
> > that Erik linked for us. I skimmed it for less than a minute, and the following
> > leaped out at me:
> >
> > "Nonetheless, the notably galloanseran-like pterygoid of Janavis, together with recent evidence of a neognath-like hemipterygoid–palatine complex in Ichthyornis12, rejects the hypothesis that the plesiomorphic condition of the neornithine palate was palaeognathous. Instead, these observations support the hypothesis that the extant palaeognathous condition is derived and convergent with the superficially similar morphologies found in stemward avialans and non-avialan theropods. Indeed, the pronounced morphometric disparity among extant palaeognath pterygoids (Fig. 3 and Extended Data Figs. 8 and 9) further emphasizes that the ‘palaeognathous condition’ may be little more than an anachronistic conceptual wastebasket, oversimplifying the substantial morphological variability within this taxonomically depauperate extant clade, and perhaps reflecting outdated assumptions that palaeognaths represent ‘primitive avian stock’ carrying over from the early days of systematic ornithology4."
> >
> > --"Cretaceous ornithurine supports a neognathous crown bird ancestor"
> > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05445-y
> >
> >
> > Why, the very title should have made John think twice before posting the following:
> > > > This discovery has no effect on the evolutionary tree, just on the character
> > > > state at the base of the tree. Paleognaths and neognaths are still each
> > > > monophyletic. No change there.
> > Unfortunately for John, Erik did not post the title, only the nondescriptive url.
> > And so we have this priceless irony.
> What priceless irony? Maybe you should try reading the article for a little more than
> a minute, and maybe even think a bit about what the "message" is. Hint: consider
> what the term ‘palaeognathous condition’ is, and what its phylogentic implications are.
>
> The reference given for the "early days of systematic ornithology" is itself a glimpse of
> good old-time phylogeny circa 1948, with references going back as far as Huxley
> himself (1867). Thirty pages of exquisite anaysis of the bony palate of paleognaths.

Forgot the reference itself:
https://academic.oup.com/auk/article/65/4/520/5247317