Monday, January 10, 2011

The Branching Tree


Many existing bird orders trace back to Enantiornithes niche subgroups.

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enantiornithes
so that it is possible that enantiornithines may actually represent successive outgroups on the lineage leading to modern birds.
AND
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsaravis
This would mean that, rather than a radiation of primitive birds separate from the radiation that led to modern birds, "enantiornithines" would actually be steps along the way to becoming modern birds.
AND
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enantiornithes
Enantiornithine fossils appear to include waders, swimmers, fish-catchers, and hook-beaked raptors.
And
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird
Enantiornithes occupied a wide array of ecological niches, from sand-probing shorebirds and fish-eaters to tree-dwelling forms and seed-eaters.
Let us say for the sake of simplicity that there are 3 niche groups within enantiornithes (waders, seabirds and landbirds). Think of these as 3 major branches. From each of these major branches, a number of smaller subbranches branch off. For example, the subbranches off the wader branch lead to the variety of modern wader orders. The subbranches off the seabird branch lead to the variety of modern seabird orders. The subbranches off the landbird branch lead to the variety of modern landbird orders.
It is a branching tree. In this picture there is increasing specializations and expansion within the niche and expansion across the globe exploiting that niche..
For example, the wader groups of Enantiornithes developed into a variety of specialized wader bird orders and expanded across the globe in their niche.

4 comments:

  1. So, basically what you're saying is that ecological niche is a the only characteristic defining these groups, despite lack of support from molecular cladistics or morphology. That's pretty bold.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That is not what I am saying.
    You seem to have read a number of posts and yet you make this sort of incorrect comment.
    I appreciate that you are reading the posts but your pre-existing bias seems to make it impossible for you to accept the evidence that is right in front of your eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "I appreciate that you are reading the posts but your pre-existing bias seems to make it impossible for you to accept the evidence that is right in front of your eyes."

    Do you realize how may times you have said things like this on your blog? Please, reread what you have said and tell me it's not ironic.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If you do not like reading this blog, nobody is forcing you.
    If you have substantial, serious things to say I am interested. Otherwise why are you wasting my time and yours.

    ReplyDelete