Talk:Enantiornithes

message: Dinoguy2, your Aves change points up a problem in taxonomy. What class do non-avian avialae belong to? Reptilia? The current class system is paraphyletic and, thus, pretty artificial.Jbrougham (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Actually, Sauropsida, since we're generally using Benton as a source for Linnean ranks. Classification is artificial by definition. Phylogeny is not, but that's not really classification. Nobody has ever named a class Avialae so using one here is original research. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Class

message: Kurochkin (2006) shows the enantiornithines, along with archaeornithines, to be theropods, thereby forming the clade Sauriurae. This means that the clade Enantiornithes is not related to Ornithurae.
Kurochkin, E.N. (2006). Parallel evolution of theropod dinosaurs and birds. Zoologicheskii Zhurnal. 85(3): 283-297.
:Only if we should take him seriously :o)--MWAK 10:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of enantiornithines 

message: Does anybody have any evidence-based theory on why the Enantiornithes went extinct at the K-T boundary and the Ornithurae didn't? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 07:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  K-T extinction / survival 

message: I have been adding several references to the monographs today trying to build up our many stumps. If anyone else has good research, please help me ! We have tons of unsourced and/or missing articles in this section that just need a ref or two to be credible. Thanks.Jbrougham (talk) 20:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey Editors! 

message: The article fail to say much concrete about the wings of this group. Some of the illustrations show claws on the manus, did they all have claws? Did they have three free fingers like the older groups, or just two like modern birds? What separate them as a group from the Confuciusornithidae? How do they differ from the more derived Ornithurae? Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see about adding some of this, but the answer to all those questions is going to vary a lot. This is a highly diverse group. Some retain clawed fingers, some lost them (even within a single family like Longipterygidae). There were three fingers that were not fused together in a carpometacarpus like modern birds, but were free like in confuciusornithids, Archaeopteryx, etc. They are separayed from confuciusornithids (probably, some have hypothesized that confuciusornithids ARE enantiornithes) by their phylogenetic positiion and lak of derived confuciusornithid characters like toothlessness and fenestrae in the deltopectoral crest, among other things. The main thing that differentiates them from ornithurines is the eponymous "opposite" shoulder joint articulation, but they also lacked fanning tails with true pygostyles, having more confuciusornithid-like tail streamers in most cases. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some edits for clarity, please check if I bugged something up! Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Enantiornithines are more derived than confuciusornithids in a number of ways (they're more adapted to flight, for instance). The toothless beak in confuciusornithids is convergent with that in modern birds, rather than being an indication of a closer relationship. Albertonykus (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my impression too. Perhaps that's why Livezey and Zusi grouped the confuciusornithids with the Archaeornithes. I really should stick to amphibians. Petter Bøckman (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Just looked up Livezey and Zusi (2007). Wow, that's... interesting. Either they reject all classifications of Mesozoic birds used by modern research or they're unaware of most studies in the past few decades. What the heck is Rahonavis doing as an enantiornithine? Clearly these are modern bird specialists attempting to retrofit a couple of token Mesozoic bird lineages into their scheme... Bottom line is, this does not reflect our current understanding of prehistoric avian relationships in any way. Now I've got to go add all their useless "new names" (i.e. junior synonyms) to existing articles :) MMartyniuk (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The wonders of classification, eh? The way I read the article, they have tried to put a Linnaean structure on our current understanding of living birds like you said. Their classification of fossil groups seem more of an afterthought. If I understand them correctly, they are grouping the birds into three main groups: The Archaeornithes grade, the Enantiornithes (possibly also to be understood as a grade) and the Ornithurae. It's a neat and tidy scheme, but will no doubt have the phylogenetic nomenclaturists knickers in a bunch. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's neat and tidy in theory, but their included phylogeny is incredibly poor in terms of taxa sampled. None of their Euentantiornithines have been found to be enantiornithines, well, ever as far as I know. If they were using grades that made any kind of sense, Rahonavis would be in Archaeornithes and Apsaravis would be in Odontornithes. And why do they have Infraclass Aves within class Aves...? MMartyniuk (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know my birds well enough to be a judge, but what you say sounds reasonable. I think perhaps they have Dinosauria or Archosauria as a class or something like it. Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Wing structure in Enantiornithes?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Enantiornithes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070219102659/http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/file_home.php to http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/file_home.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
*  ()
*  ()
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion