Talk:Neognathae

Systematics

I have reverted to the old systematics. Basically, the new one is utter nonsense for the most part (what is it based on? Livezey & Zusi's wel-intended but deeply flawed study which would have killed the career of any young ornithologist stone dead?). "Gaviomorphae" are refuted since the 1930s. "Pelecanimorphae" is not monophyletic. "Cuculimorphae" is almost certainly false (it should at least partially belong into Passerimorphae). "Psittacimorphae" is highly suspect. "Falconimorphae" is... well, no serious ornitholgist would really want to place any bets on the relationship between diurnal and nocturnal raptors. "Gruiformes" are not monophyletic either as delimited here. The "Craci" are paraphyletic. And so on.

Anything not even mentioning the Mirandornithes is utterly rejected - and for good reasons too - by almost every ornithologist today.

I strongly suggest using the TOLweb phylogeny for the time being. Apart from Falconiformes being in a weird place (DNA-DNA hybridization data's fault, most likely, because accipitrids cannot be analyzed with that technique in a meaningful way) and Coliiformes and Psittaciformes probably too distant from each other, this is (as of 2008-JAN-08) as good as one can ever expct it to get. Nothing outrageous, all the good clades are there; overall it's surprisingly good. In fact, it is amazing how little has changed in the last 2 years. Guess they were extremely lucky in picking up a good point in time to start. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Intense wording for an intense topic?

"the Mesozoic record of Neognathae is at present utterly devoid of birds that should have been present if these proposed clades were real". Seems a bit intense, like someone has a personal vendetta against this clade. It's funny to read, but perhaps not the most encyclopedic tone. This topic is not my expertise, so I'm creating a talk post in case I am wrong and that truly is the best wording. Haplodiploid75 (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)