Pterosaurs to Modern Birds

Pterosaur brachiopatagium to bird postpatagium

2012-02-16T08:54:00.000-08:00

In an earlier post, we saw information about the pterosaur propatagium and the bird propatagium:
http://pterosaurnet.blogspot.com/2011/11/propatagium.html

We can see that the propatagium of the pterosaur developed into the propatagium of the bird.

Now lets look at the brachiopatagium of the pterosaur (see drawing above) and see how it changed in the development to bird.
The answer is very simple. The skin membrane receded, to end up much smaller and tight against the arm and the side of the body. In the bird, it is called the POSTPATAGIUM. The actinofibrils were now exposed and developed into feathers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_feather
"Remiges (from the Latin for "oarsman") are located on the posterior side of the wing. Ligaments attach the long calami, or quills, firmly to the wing bones, and a thick, strong band of tendinous tissue—known as the postpatagium—helps to hold and support the remiges in place.^[1]"

^{http://www.wordnik.com/words/postpatagium}
Postpatagium:
^{n. In ornithology, the triangular fold of skin, just back of the shoulder-joint, which runs from the side of the body to the upper posterior face of the upper arm.}

No antecedent structures in dino to bird theory

2012-02-10T17:05:00.000-08:00

http://www.yale.edu/eeb/prum/pdf/Prum_n_Brush_2002.pdf
"Feathers, however, are hierarchically
complex assemblages of numerous
evolutionary novelties—the feather follicle,
tubular feather germ, feather branched structure,
interacting differentiated barbules—that
have no homolog in any antecedent structures
(Brush 1993, 1996, 2000; Prum 1999). Genuine
evolutionary novelties are distinct from
simple microevolutionary changes in that they
are qualitatively or categorically different from
any antecedent or homonomous structure"

""In conclusion, the morphological and
molecular developmental details shared by
avian feather and scales support homology
between these structures at the level of the
placode. The morphology and development
of all subsequent structures within the feather
are evolutionary novelties that have no homologs
in avian or reptilian scales."

"Many features of feathers and feather development
meet this definition and qualify as evolutionary novelties. The follicle, the differentiated
sheath and feather germ, differentiated
barb ridges, barb rami, barbules, differentiated
pennulae of the proximal and distal bar bules, and the rachis are all evolutionary novelties,
as are the derived mechanisms by which
these novel structures develop.
At a molecular level, the derived 10 kilodalton -keratins of
feathers are also novel"

In regards to the feather, the dino to bird theory depends on a series of miracles (aka "numerous evolutionary novelties that have no homolog in any antecedent structures").

Dinosaurs did not have wing-like arms

2012-02-04T10:38:00.000-08:00

I could hardly have put it better:
http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzool..._they_dont.php

Quote:

The fact that long remiges have now been documented in oviraptorosaurs, dromaeosaurids and other maniraptorans shows that feathered arms essentially the same as those present in basal birds evolved somewhere round about the base of the oviraptorosaur + paravian clade, and there is no evidence that wing-like arms were present in more basal coelurosaurs, nor in other theropods, or other dinosaurs, or other archosaurs.

The dino to bird folks do not identify their imagined lineage. Even so, they have some belief that coelurosaur dinosaurs evolved into maniraptors and those maniraptors evolved into modern birds. But it leaves open when in that lineage "wing-like arms" appeared.
Naish asserts that "feathered arms essentially the same as those present in basal birds evolved somewhere round about the base of the oviraptorosaur + paravian clade".
HOWEVER "there is no evidence that wing-like arms were present in more basal coelurosaurs, nor in other theropods, or other dinosaurs, or other archosaurs."

In other words, concerning wing arms, there is no connection whatsoever between dinos and paraves/oviraptors.

Hypothetical Creatures

2012-02-04T10:34:00.000-08:00

http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/06/birds_come_first_no_they_dont.php

But, ultimately, BCF is entirely unsatisfactory: we're supposed to construct scientific hypotheses based on the evidence we have, rather than on the evidence we think there should be, and BCF is just way too speculative. It proposes the existence of a whole lineage of hypothetical creatures that are absent from the fossil record.

Naish makes it sound like there is a problem if you propose the existence of a whole lineage of hypothetical creatures that are absent from the fossil record.

But of course that is EXACTLY what the dino to bird theory does!
As I have pointed out again and again.

Spelling it out

2012-02-03T09:17:00.000-08:00

"Shared behavioural, morphological and physiological characteristics are indicative of the evolution of extant birds from nonavian maniraptoran dinosaurs. One such shared character is the presence of uncinate processes and respiratory structures in extant birds. Recent research has suggested a respiratory role for these processes found in oviraptorid and dromaeosaurid dinosaurs. By measuring the geometry of fossil rib cage morphology, we demonstrate that the mechanical advantage, conferred by uncinate processes, for movements of the ribs in the oviraptorid theropod dinosaur, Citipati osmolskae, basal avialan species Zhongjianornis yangi, Confuciusornis sanctus and the more derived ornithurine Yixianornis grabaui, is of the same magnitude as found in extant birds. These skeletal characteristics provide further evidence of a flow-through respiratory system in nonavian theropod [maniraptors] dinosaurs and basal avialans, and indicate that uncinate processes are a key adaptation facilitating the ventilation of a lung air sac system that diverged earlier than extant birds."

Note that all the taxa in red are MANIRAPTORS. None of them are dinosaurs.
There is great evidence that birds developed from manirapators. But no evidence that maniraptors developed from dinosaurs.

This FACT would be more well-known, if the cladists stopped calling maniraptors "dinosaurs" and simply correctly called them maniraptors.
There is no connection between dinosaurs and maniraptors. That is the Achilles Heel of the dino to bird theory.

Maniraptor to modern bird

2012-02-02T11:43:00.000-08:00

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2012.02465.x/abstract;jsessionid=D85984F3042F8E00C550060394176368.d03t02?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+4+Feb+from+10-12+GMT+for+monthly+maintenance
"Shared behavioural, morphological and physiological characteristics are indicative of the evolution of extant birds from nonavian maniraptoran dinosaurs. One such shared character is the presence of uncinate processes and respiratory structures in extant birds. Recent research has suggested a respiratory role for these processes found in oviraptorid and dromaeosaurid dinosaurs. By measuring the geometry of fossil rib cage morphology, we demonstrate that the mechanical advantage, conferred by uncinate processes, for movements of the ribs in the oviraptorid theropod dinosaur, Citipati osmolskae, basal avialan species Zhongjianornis yangi, Confuciusornis sanctus and the more derived ornithurine Yixianornis grabaui, is of the same magnitude as found in extant birds. These skeletal characteristics provide further evidence of a flow-through respiratory system in nonavian theropod [maniraptors] dinosaurs and basal avialans, and indicate that uncinate processes are a key adaptation facilitating the ventilation of a lung air sac system that diverged earlier than extant birds."

Great evidence that birds developed from maniraptors. No evidence that maniraptors developed from dinosaurs.

See this earlier post concerning pterosaurs and uncinate processes:
http://pterosaurnet.blogspot.com/2010/05/uncinate-processes.html

Citipati osmolskae, Zhongjianornis yangi, Confuciusornis sanctus and Yixianornis grabaui are all MANIRAPTORS, not dinosaurs.

Dinosaurs did not have feathers

2012-01-25T19:51:00.000-08:00

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0315_060315_dinosaur.html
The fossil of a small, predatory dinosaur discovered in Germany has experts rethinking how feathers developed among the dinosaurs that likely gave rise to birds.
The authors say the new species undermines the notion that a covering of simple, hairlike feathers was characteristic of such early theropods as was previously believed.
Given its position in the dinosaur family tree, Juravenator "should bear filamentous feathers," Xing Xu said in an interview.
But Chiappe says the new fossil didn't seem to bear any physical evidence of feathers, missing or not. "You could expect to see follicle [in the skin], small pits that contain feather buds. We don't see them in Juravenator," Chiappe said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juravenator
Juravenator is a genus of small (70 cm long) coelurosaurian [Compsognathidae] dinosaur, which lived in the area which would someday become the Jura mountains of Germany, about 151 or 152 million years ago.

Taking a break from pterosaurs

2012-01-06T07:41:00.001-08:00

A fascinating video on the development of the "electronic face" of a frog.
Here is the study:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110718111421.htm

Flamingo Lineage (2)

2011-12-28T12:38:00.000-08:00

Here is an enhancement to the possible flamingo lineage:

Pterosaur (Ctenochasmatidae ) Pterodaustro --->
Presbyornithid subgroup-->
Primitive bird, Palaelodidae (Phoenicopteriformes) -->
Flamingo (Phoenicopteriformes)

Pterosaurs lasted till late Cretaceous

Presbyornithids spanned from late Cretaceous? to Early Oligocene

Palaelodidae spanned from early Oligocene to Middle Pleistocene

Modern flamingos span from 30 mya to the present day

http://www.flamingos-world.com/flamingo-evolution.html
* There is evidence to indicate the Flamingo evolved at least 30 million years ago, perhaps longer.

Note: I have added in the flamingos here:
http://pterosaurnet.blogspot.com/2011/10/waterfowl_07.html

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.20990/pdf
"Our investigation of skeletal and ontogenetic variation in Pterodaustro gives insights into the
developmental growth dynamics of this unusual ctenochasmatid pterodactyloid from early
ontogeny through to adulthood and also pro vides information pertaining to histological variability within and between bones of individuals. This study also documents the presence of what appears to be medullary bone tissue within the medullary cavity of a large femur of Pterodaustro. This suggests that, like birds, reproductively active female pterosaurs may have deposited a special bone tissue (medullary bone) to cope with the demand of calcium during eggshelling."

Dromaeosauridae

2011-12-23T08:28:00.000-08:00

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/saurischia/dromaeosauridae.html

According to current thinking, birds are hypothesized to have shared a common ancestor with the dromaeosaurs sometime in the Jurassic period; is thus termed the sister group of the clade Aves (which includes all birds). It may even be that the ancestry of [some] birds lies within this group, which would make them dromaeosaurs too, but this is not at all established.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/saurischia/troodontidae.html

The Troodontidae are a small group (maybe five different species) of very rare and hence poorly known maniraptorans. They are only known from a few incomplete specimens from the Cretaceous period of North America and Mongolia, so their exact affinities to other maniraptorans are uncertain. It has been suggested that they were the ancestors of birds, but this is not accepted; a dromaeosaur is currently thought to be the ancestor of all [some] birds. Even though dromaeosaur and troodontids are outwardly similar, scientists are not certain yet that they are closely related, but are confident that troodontids lie within the clade Maniraptora.

It is an interesting question as to how many modern bird lineages stemmed from the Dromaeosauridae. If anyone would be interested in analyzing that particular question with me, please let me know.

Note: I have added the word "some" in square brackets to these wiki quotes because I leave open the idea that some (but not all) birds developed from the dromaeosauridae.

The Flamingo Lineage

2011-12-19T09:24:00.000-08:00

Here is an introduction to the flamingo lineage:

A preliminary, possible lineage:

Pterosaur (Ctenochasmatidae) Pterodaustro --> Primitive bird, Palaelodidae (Phoenicopteriformes)
--> Flamingo (Phoenicopteriformes)

See this earlier post on the flamingo pterosaur:
http://pterosaurnet.blogspot.com/2010/05/flamingo.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterodaustro
Pterodaustro is a genus of Cretaceous pterodactyloid pterosaur [Ctenochasmatidae] from South America, which lived 105 million years ago.

http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/aviandinosaurs3/p/pterodaustro.htm
The modern bird that's most often compared to the South American Pterodaustro is the flamingo, which this pterosaur closely resembled in appearance, if not in every aspect of its anatomy. Based on its thousand or so distinctive, bristlelike teeth, paleontologists believe that the early Cretaceous Pterodaustro dipped its curved beak into the water to filter out plankton, small crustaceans, and other tiny aquatic creatures. Since shrimp and plankton are predominantly pink, some of these scientists also speculate that Pterodaustro may have had a distinctly pinkish hue, another trait it would have shared with modern flamingos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterodaustro
Pterodaustro probably waded in shallow water like flamingos, straining food with its tooth comb, a method called "filter feeding".[4] Once it caught its food, Pterodaustro probably mashed it with the small, globular teeth present in its upper jaw.
According to Robert Bakker, like with flamingos, this pterosaur's diet may have resulted in a pink hue. Thus, it is often dubbed the "flamingo pterosaur".[5]

http://pterodata.blogspot.com/2009/06/very-peculiar-pterosaur.html
"Pterodaustro is represented by a number of specimens from Argentina. There is a complete skeleton, a partial juvenile and an egg, just to mention a few. This unusual pterosaur is quite well represented in the fossil record, certainly enough is known to make a convincing reconstruction.
Most unusually, this was a filter feeder with a fine sieve of unusually adapted teeth that would have been ideal for filter feeding on small aquatic living organisms. This was the Flamingo of the ancient world!
It is also the first pterosaur where gizzard stones have been observed to be present."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicopteriformes

An extinct family of peculiar "swimming flamingos", the Palaelodidae, are believed to be related to, or to be THE ANCESTORS OF, the modern flamingos. This is sometimes rejected, since the fossil Elornis is known to be from some time before any palaelodid flamingos have been recorded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaelodidae

"The Palaelodidae are a family of extinct birds in the order Phoenicopteriformes, which today is represented only by the flamingos.[1] They have been described as "swimming flamingos."

Three genera are recognised:

Adelalopus, called the "stout-legged flamingos" (Borgloon Early Oligocene of Hoogbutsel, Belgium)[2]

Palaelodus (Middle Oligocene -? Middle Pleistocene)

Megapaloelodus (Late Oligocene - Early Pliocene)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamingos

"A wide variety of birds have been proposed as their closest relatives, on a wide variety of evidence. To reflect the uncertainty about this matter, flamingos are generally placed in their own order. [Phoenicopteriformes]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaelodus
"Palaelodus is an extinct genus of birds distantly related to flamingos. They were slender birds with long, thin legs and a long neck. Little is known about the shape of their skull or beak. Some paleontologists think Palaelodus was able to swim under water, chasing prey, but the morphology of their feet seems not very well adapted for diving. Rather, it is more likely that they were adapted to browsing for food while swimming or standing in shallow water.
The family, Palaelodidae, is the sister taxon of modern flamingos, and the order Phoenicopteriformes, to which both belong, probably evolved from a grebe-like ancestor. It is easy to see how a bird like Palaelodus represents an intermediate form between a diving, fish-eating grebe and a wading, invertebrate-filtering flamingo. This does not mean that the palaelodids are the ancestors of the flamingos. Rather, they were a sister group that remained in the ecological niche of their common ancestor."

Since cladistics does not recognize ANCESTORS, it really means nothing to say that they "probably evolved from a grebe-like ancestor" or that "they were a sister group". Cladistics always says something like that. That tells us nothing.
Palaelodids may well have been the ancestors of the flamingos. Anything cladistics says on that question is irrelevant.

BUT EVEN Without regard to the question of whether Palaelodus was an ancestor or a "sister taxon", we have confirmation of the idea that a separate line led to Phoenicopteriformes.

It is one of the parallel lines I talk about.

Cladistics - Sleight of Hand

2011-12-16T10:51:00.000-08:00

http://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2008/12/19/monophyletic-paraphyletic-and-polyphyletic/
"Birds are dinosaurs, that is, they are the direct descendents of an ancestor that spawned the dinosaurs, yet palaeontologists typically refer to dinosaurs while explicitly not referring to birds. Thus one should formally call them non-avian dinosaurs (basically all dinosaurs except birds)."
and
"First off the rhamphorhynchoid pterosaurs (or more properly ‘rhamphorhynchoids’ as the quotes denote it as paraphyletic) which often come up here in my frequent posts on pterosaurs. As with non-avian dinosaurs, the term persists as one of convenience as basically it’s easier to write than “non-pterodactyloid pterosaurs”."

Note the sleight of hand.
The author says:
"Birds are dinosaurs, that is, they are the direct descendents of an ancestor that spawned the dinosaurs".

In other words, birds did NOT evolve from dinosaurs but rather (according to the author) birds and dinosaurs evolved from some OTHER unnamed "common ancestor".
But the author does not make this point clear at all. In fact, he misleadingly compares it to the paraphyletic (ANCESTRAL) rhamphorhynchus which is a true ANCESTOR relationship - an ancestor of pterodactyls.
He talks as if they were the same type of relationship.
Of course they are not at all the same - they are opposites.

NOTE: Birds are not even related to dinosaurs. Cladistics makes it even more difficult to establish correct ancestry. In this post I am just showing the absurdity of cladistics. If we just kept to ancestor/descendant relationships we would not have these cladistic obfuscations.

The absurdity of cladistics

2011-12-10T09:15:00.000-08:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_grade
"An evolutionary grade is a group of species united by morphological or physiological traits, that has given rise to another group that differs markedly from the ancestral condition, and is thus not considered part of the ancestral group. The ancestral group will not be phylogenetically complete (i.e. will not form a clade), so will represent a paraphyletic taxon".

This is the absurdity of cladistics.
When "a group of species has given rise to another group that differs markedly from the ancestral condition, it is not considered part of the ancestral group."

So an ANCESTOR is not an ANCESTOR!!!

I expect that not many cladists even know about the absurdity buried within cladistics.

Ancestral relationships

2011-12-10T07:40:00.000-08:00

Here is another example of cladists struggling with an ancestral relationship. Keep in mind that cladistics does not recognize ancestral relationships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoazhdarchia
"There are currently two primary but competing views of azhdarchoid relationships. The first, presented by Felipe Pinheiro and colleagues in 2011, considers the tapejarids to be a monophyletic clade including the thalassodromines and chaoyangopterines.[4] The second, found by Lu et al. 2008 as well as Naish & Martill 2006, considers the tapejarids to be a paraphyletic [ANCESTRAL] grade of primitive azhdarchoids. All azhdarchoids closer toAzhdarcho than to Tapejara are included in the clade Neoazhdarchia("new azhdarchids").[2]"

Azhdarchoidea

Azhdarchidae

Tapejaridae

Thalassodrominae

	Chaoyangopterinae

	Tapejarinae

Azhdarchoidea

Tapejaridae

Neoazhdarchia

Thalassodromidae

	Chaoyangopteridae

	Azhdarchidae

If we analyze these two competing views they actually come down to two different conclusions about the ANCESTRAL relationships.
In the first view, Azhdarchidae is the ancestor (which is not acknowledged). In the second view, Tapejaridae is the ancestor (and is acknowledged).
Since cladistics does not even recognize ancestral relationships, the cladists are stymied about how to even think about these ancestral relationships.

"An important unanswered question"

2011-12-09T12:28:00.000-08:00

More from this new study:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0028672
"The timing and sequence of events that led to the origin and subsequent evolution of flapping flight in birds remains an important unanswered question in vertebrate evolutionary biology."

The question is "unanswered". That is quite an admission.
The dino to bird enthusiasts themselves acknowledge that on the most important question they have no idea.
They cannot even figure out a story to explain how a purported unknown, unfound dinosaur lineage somehow developed wings and feathers and became birds.
It is an absurd idea. And for most of history it has been recognized as absurd.

Enantiornithes - versatile fliers

2011-12-08T07:48:00.000-08:00

Here is a new study that contains some very interesting material.
Here is one small part concerning Enantiornithes:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0028672

Four flight styles for living birds were used:‘continuous flapping’ (CF) (e.g. grebes, ducks and auks); ‘flapping and soaring’ (FS) (e.g. storks, pelicans and large raptors); ‘flapping and gliding’ (FG) (e.g. swifts, falcons and gulls); ‘passerine-type flight’ (PT).
AND
sampled enantiornithines fall across the range of all defined flight styles

I have proposed that enantiornithines are the ancestors of many modern bird taxa. When it comes to flight style we see the versatility within enantiornithes.
And we already saw that they inhabited all the different niches.

No dino to bird lineage

2011-12-05T19:22:00.000-08:00

It may be surprising for some people to learn that the dino to bird theory is not supported by any fossils. Those who propose the dino to bird theory acknowledge the fact that they have never found one fossil that is on the purported line from dino to bird.
There are a number of dinosaur taxa that have been found, but it has been determined that none of them are ancestors to birds.
Even so, the dino to bird enthusiasts still imagine that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

There are some who work with the idea that modern birds evolved from maniraptors (maniraptors are primitive birds) and that dromaeosaurs may be the ancestors of modern birds. That is solid and supported by fossils. That is also part of what I am proposing.
But there are no taxa ever found that link actual dinosaurs to those primitive birds.
NONE.

This lack of fossils is well known but never mentioned.
All that has ever been found are dinosaur taxa that are NOT ancestors. The dino to bird theorists claim they are "sister taxa". But of course that makes no sense because there is no evidence of any actual dino to bird lineage for those sister taxa to be related to. None.
It is all imagination.

History and Confusion

2011-11-25T15:49:00.000-08:00

History:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_renaissance#Dinosaurs_and_the_origin_of_birds
"In the mid and latter parts of the nineteenth century, many scientists thought there was a close relationship between birds and dinosaurs—and that dinosaurs represented an intermediate stage between "reptiles" and birds.
It was shortly after the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species, British biologist and evolution-defender Thomas Henry Huxley proposed that birds were descendants of dinosaurs. He cited skeletal similarities, particularly among dinosaurs, the "first bird"—Archaeopteryx—and modern birds.[4][5]
However, in 1926, Gerhard Heilmann wrote his influential book The Origin of Birds,[6] in which he dismissed the dinosaur-bird link, based on the dinosaurs' supposed lack of a furcula (fused clavicles).[7] Thereafter, the accepted hypotheses was that birds evolved from 'crocodylomorph' and 'thecodont' ancestors, rather than dinosaurs. This removed dinosaurs from playing a central role in debates about the origin of living species, and may have contributed to the decline of academic interest in dinosaur evolution.
This remained the situation until 1964, when John Ostrom discovered a small carnivorous dinosaur [maniraptor] which he named Deinonychus antirrhopus,[8] a theropod [maniraptor] whose skeletal resemblance to birds seemed unmistakable. This led Ostrom to argue that Huxley had been right, and that birds had indeed evolved from dinosaurs.[2] Although it was Deinonychus [a maniraptor] that inspired Ostrom to connect birds with dinosaurs, very similar birdlike dinosaurs [maniraptors], such as Velociraptor had been known for many decades,[9] but no connection had been made. After Ostrom's discoveries, the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs gained support among palaeontologists, and today it is almost universally accepted. Newer methods, such as cladistics, and the discovery of several feathered dinosaurs have helped confirm the relationship."

This is all based on confusing MANIRAPTORS with DINOSAURS!
Everything is made clear when we more accurately say:
This led Ostrom to argue that birds had indeed evolved from MANIRAPTORS.
and
Although it was Deinonychus that inspired Ostrom to connect birds with MANIRAPTORS, very similar birdlike MANIRAPTORS, such as Velociraptor had been known for many decades, but no connection had been made.

Birds developed from MANIRAPTORS. But maniraptors did not develop from dinosaurs.

So it is more accurate to say that people believe in the maniraptor to bird theory. And I agree with that.

But if people go further and claim an ancestor/descendant relationship between dinosaurs and maniraptors, then they go beyond the evidence.

New opinions ...

2011-11-25T09:15:00.000-08:00

“New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common."
~John Locke

"In the choice between changing one's mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof."
~John Kenneth Galbraith

"Our wretched species is so made that those who walk on the well-trodden path always throw stones at those who are showing a new road."
~Voltaire

"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."
~Winston Churchill

What is the alternative?

2011-11-24T08:16:00.000-08:00

http://www.jstor.org/pss/4085810
According to this reference, for a long time, folks thought that birds evolved from "pseudosuchian archosaurs". Then that fell from favour and was replaced by a purported "direct derivation of birds from theropod dinosaurs".
When that was shown to be untenable, some folks moved to the idea that birds evolved from crocodile type ancestors. (Yes, crocodiles).
But then that idea fell from favour and the folks moved to some purported vague dinosaur ancestry. But they do not give any specifics so that it can never be evaluated.

Perhaps someone could do us all a favour and tell us what the current thinking is about the purported dino to bird lineage.

I have proposed a lineage. What is the alternative?

Pterosaur teeth are like bird teeth

2011-11-23T07:33:00.000-08:00

http://www.pterosaur.co.uk/identify/teeth/teeth.htm
Most pterosaur teeth are relatively smooth with an oval section and no ridges. They tend to taper evenly to the tip and can be straight or gently curved along their length.
It is worth knowing that pterosaur material is rare and can command a good price on the market. Pterosaur teeth are also rare and it is unusual to find large quantities of them. Several other fossil species show similarities with pterosaur teeth, especially some juvenile crocodiles.

http://www.livescience.com/7051-surprise-chickens-grow-teeth.html
The researchers recently created more Talpids by tweaking the genes of normal chickens to grow teeth.
"What we discovered were [bird] teeth similar to those of crocodiles.."

Pterosaur teeth:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_RdSbs0-97Pw/S5oAy1xtuxI/AAAAAAAAB2s/jYQ-GusuYVE/s400/PterosaurTeeth.jpg

http://www.arizonaskiesmeteorites.com/Dinosaur_Fossils_For_Sale/Pterosaur_Fossils/Pterosaur_Tooth_1.jpg

http://www.jstor.org/pss/4085810
Avian dentitions also pose a problem for the dinosaur hypothesis. While theropod teeth are serrated and have straight roots, avian teeth, like those of crocodilians, are unserrated, with constricted bases and expanded roots.

Here is a theropod dinosaur tooth:

http://australianmuseum.net.au/image/Theropod-dinosaur-tooth/

Description
"SEM of theropod dinosaur tooth, showing serrated edge."

As we see, bird teeth (when they are forced to express) are like pterosaur teeth, according to the peer reviewed research - according to the evidence.
On the other hand, bird teeth are not like dinosaur teeth.
We see again that those who believe in the dino to bird theory do so, NOT because of the evidence but in spite of the evidence.
The dino to bird theory is an old idea that does not stand up to modern evidence.

Uniqueness

2011-11-11T07:12:00.000-08:00

http://bigcat.fhsu.edu/biology/cbennett/flotsam/Bennett-2008-forelimb-myology.pdf
"...the large size, great length, and unconventional arrangement such that it swung backward in flight position enabled digit IV to spread and support the wing yet fold it out of the way when the animal was not flying.
Such an arrangement of fingers with one swinging away from the others is unique among vertebrates."
Let's consider this "uniqueness".
Whenever an explanation requires a characteristic that is "unique among vertebrates" we have to question whether this explanation is correct.
After all, if someone says to you - okay here is how it worked. It worked in a way that is found NOWHERE ELSE IN THE VERTEBRATE WORLD. Then you have to think that perhaps that explanation is not correct.
So I think we can put such an explanation to the side.

In case people are having trouble visualizing what I am proposing, work with your own hand.
Hold your hand out, palm down. Your index finger is the wing finger so it is very long. Bend your index finger toward your palm. Now imagine that you could continue bending it in that direction so that the index finger would point back toward the elbow.
That is what I am suggesting.
Now the question arises as to how that could be accomplished, given the length of the index finger.
I can see how that could be accomplished but if anyone would like to offer up a suggestion please do.

Here is how it could work:
Begin with the pterosaur on all fours (or standing) with the index finger bent (toward the palm and then toward the elbow).
The unfolding of the index finger is a combined motion of lifting the arm, rotating the arm slightly backward (palm back) and unfolding the finger. Then at the top of the arm extension, rotating the arm back again.

What I am saying does not require a vault launch method but it would work with that method as well.
See video:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19724-did-giant-pterosaurs-vault-aloft-like-vampire-bats.html

So we see how the long index finger could be unfolded.
How would it be folded to begin with?
It would follow the steps I listed in reverse order. Starting with the arms up.
Does anyone have trouble visualizing that?

I am proposing that the index finger is the long wing finger and forms the leading edge of the wing.
I hope by now it is clear that when I talk about the index finger, that I am taking the pteroid as the thumb.

Note: I am proposing that the index finger is the wing finger. But the pterosaur to bird theory does not require that idea.

A question about the pterosaur wing finger folding

2011-11-10T07:48:00.000-08:00

Does this drawing represent the current thinking about how the pterosaur folded its wing finger?

http://pterosaurheresies.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/standing-pteranodon-72.jpg?w=584&h=793

AND

Here is a basic question about the current thinking - that the 4th finger is the wing finger and that it is turned 90 degrees. Is it turned 90 degrees TOWARD the THUMB or 90 degrees AWAY from the THUMB? I have not seen any reference that explicitly answers that question.
Can anyone provide a reference that gives the answer to that question?

Propatagium

2011-11-07T07:50:00.000-08:00

Pterosaur:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterosaur

"The pterosaur wing membrane is divided into three basic units. The first, called the propatagium ("first membrane"), was the forward-most part of the wing and attached between the wrist and shoulder, creating the "leading edge" during flight."

Bird:
http://www.brendanbody.co.uk/flight_tutorial/images/Ibis_propatagium.jpg

"Here is an image of a White Ibis in flight showing full breeding plumage, in this instance the bird is pushing it's wings down and the arm is stretched out. As you can see, we get a good view of where the bones are positioned in the wing, notice that they don't run along the front of the wing. The elbow is set back from the leading edge and the bend in the arm is hidden by the Propatagium, a fold of skin inside the front part of the wing which connects to the shoulder and the wrist."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmor.1052190209/abstract
"The propatagium is variably deployed, relative to elbow extension, in flight; support for its cambered shape is maintained by multilayered collagenous and elastic tissue networks suspended between leading edge and dorsal antebrachium."

Birdman

2011-11-04T19:40:00.001-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5N9t5qOSzCU&feature=related

Ventilation - pterosaurs are like birds

2011-11-04T08:25:00.000-07:00

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2009/02/19-02.html
"Modern birds sustain their flight with an efficient ventilation system that keeps air flowing to their muscles. But no one knew how pterosaurs, the first flying vertebrates, powered their wings. A new study in PLoS One concludes that ancient pterosaurs, flying reptiles that lived 220 million to 65 million years ago, did much the same, with a mobile rib cage and a system of air sacs distributed throughout the bones to help move air around."

"The researchers also studied the air spaces in pterosaur bones and concluded that they were associated with air sacs, arranged in patterns similar to those seen in modern birds. The bigger the pterosaur, the more air sacs, just like in modern birds. The air spaces help oxygen circulate and probably also made bones light enough for flight."

Note as always there are dissenting opinions:
"But matching anatomy in pterosaurs to modern animals may be misleading, says Jaap Hillenius, a functional morphologist at the College of Charleston in South Carolina. Pterosaurs left no descendants and are only distantly related to birds. It's possible that the new study is correct, Hillenius says, but he's skeptical. For example, he thinks the model of rib-cage movement doesn't allow enough air for active flight, and that the sternum was not strong enough to support such movement. "Until we find a living pterosaur," there's no way to know for sure—"and that's not going to happen."".

Here is a wikipedia reference to that study:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterosaur
A 2009 study showed that pterosaurs had a lung-air sac system and a precisely controlled skeletal breathing pump, which supports a flow-through pulmonary ventilation model in pterosaurs, analogous to that of birds. The presence of a subcutaneous air sac system in at least some pterodactyloids would have further reduced the density of the living animal.^[12]

"Bird feathers are analogous to the wing fibers of pterosaurs,"

2011-10-27T19:55:00.000-07:00

Here is a reference that shows the internal composition of the pterosaur wing membrane. It is quite astonishing. Check out page 241 and the pages nearby. (Unfortunately it is not possible to copy and paste the photographs from this pdf.)

http://books.google.ca/books?id=8CKYxcylOycC&pg=PA243&lpg=PA243&dq=tenopatagium&source=bl&ots=SopV9CAGec&sig=-gWOltWiFGplrU9tcXV8X8pBPUI&hl=en&ei=vyTjS5aEBoT6lwf_uMC9Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CC8Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=tenopatagium&f=false

It is astonishing because we can see that the structure of feathers is already present in the membrane.
Roughly speaking we need only remove the membrane and we can see the source of modern feathers.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/pter.html
"Bird feathers are analogous to the wing fibers of pterosaurs,"

http://www.springerlink.com/content/v8434087565413kk/fulltext.pdf?page=1
"Wellnhofer [4, 5] and Padian [6, 7], following von Zittel [8],described a system of fine structural fibers investing the wing membrane, in a pattern similar to the orientation of the feather shafts of birds and the wing fingers of bats, both principal structural elements supporting the patagium and responsible for the transmission of aerodynamic force."

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2400656
The wing membrane was supported and controlled through a system of stiffened, intercalated fibers, which were oriented like the main structural elements in the wings of birds and bats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterosaur

"research has since shown that the wing membranes of pterosaurs were actually highly complex and dynamic structures suited to an active style of flight. First, the outer wings (from the wing to the elbow) were strengthened by closely spaced fibers called actinofibrils.^[5] The actinofibrils themselves consisted of three distinct layers in the wing, forming a crisscross pattern when superimposed on one another. The actual function of the actinofibrils is unknown, as is the exact material from which they were made. Depending on their exact composition (keratin, muscle, elastic structures, etc.), they may have been stiffening or strengthening agents in the outer part of the wing.^[6] The wing membranes also contained a thin layer of muscle, fibrous tissue, and a unique, complex circulatory system of looping blood vessels.^[7]"

http://books.google.ca/books?id=idta6AVV-tIC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=actinofibrils&source=bl&ots=2E-08Z7eLr&sig=rkiJwNwSZCbYJ9MtkYQDfQ9HDE0&hl=en&ei=0ureTJSDKMienAe_3pXtDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=actinofibrils&f=false
"Since they [actinofibrils] were external, they were probably epidermal structures composed of keratin as in scales and feathers."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterosaur
"research has since shown that the wing membranes of pterosaurs were actually highly complex and dynamic structures suited to an active style of flight. First, the outer wings (from the wing to the elbow) were strengthened by closely spaced fibers called actinofibrils.[5] The actinofibrils themselves consisted of three distinct layers in the wing, forming a crisscross pattern when superimposed on one another."

In modern birds, the sets of feathers overlap - different overlapping coverts. We may be seeing something similar in the pterosaur fibers that overlap.
The other possibility is that the 3 "layers" are actually rachis, barb and barbule and only appear as 3 "layers" WHEN SUPERIMPOSED.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennaceous_feather
"Pennaceous feathers are also known as contour feathers. This type of feather is present in most modern birds and has been shown in some species of maniraptoran dinosaurs. A pennaceous feather has a stalk or quill. Its basal part, called a calamus, is embedded in the skin. The calamus is hollow and has pith formed from the dry remains of the feather pulp, and the calamus opens below by an inferior umbilicus and above by a superior umbilicus. The stalk above the calamus is a solid rachis having an umbilical groove on its underside. Pennaceous feathers have a central shaft (or rachis) with vanes or vaxillum spreading to either side. These vanes are composed of a high number of flattened barbs, that are connected to one another with barbules.
The barbules are tiny strands that criss-cross on the flattened sides of the barbs. This forms a kind of miniature velcro-like mesh that holds all the barbs together, stabilizing the vanes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_feather
Remiges (from the Latin for "oarsman") are located on the posterior side of the wing.Ligaments attach the long calami, or quills, firmly to the wing bones, and a thick, strong band of tendinous tissue—known as the postpatagium—helps to hold and support the remiges in place.^[1]

http://www.wordnik.com/words/postpatagium
" In ornithology, the triangular fold of skin, just back of the shoulder-joint, which runs from the side of the body to the upper posterior face of the upper arm."

http://www.innvista.com/science/zoology/ornithology/birdtopo.htm
"Postpatagium is the tough band of tendinous tissue that envelops and supports the quills of all the wing remiges, from elbow to wingtip. The postpatagium provides much of the elastic strength of the wing and keeps the flight feathers properly aligned and firmly attached to the wing skeleton."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterosaur
"The brachiopatagium ("arm membrane") was the primary component of the [pterosaur] wing, stretching from the highly elongated fourth finger of the hand to the hind limbs"

FOR REFERENCE:
http://www.biology-resources.com/drawing-bird-feather-structure.html

http://www.lilycli.com/gallery/lart/Bird_Wing_lilycli.jpg

http://www.glogster.com/media/5/34/29/19/34291999.jpg

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/pterosaurwing.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Pterosaur_wing_BW2.jpg/300px-Pterosaur_wing_BW2.jpg

Pterosaur to bird - hand development

2011-10-25T08:15:00.000-07:00

Here is a revised version of the progression of phalanges:

2-2-3-4-4 Pterosaur
2-3-4-x-x Primitive bird (maniraptors that are not modern birds)
2-2-1-x-x Modern bird

The pteroid is composed of two fused phalanges.
http://www.oceansofkansas.com/Pteranodon/FHSM/FHSM%20VP-2072Pteroid1.jpg

http://www.oceansofkansas.com/Pteranodon.html

http://www.oceansofkansas.com/Pteranodon/FHSM/FHSM%20VP-2183-3a.jpg

http://www.seaworld.org/animal-info/info-books/raptors/physical-characteristics.htm
"The wings of many diurnal birds of prey have a vestigial claw located at the end of the thumb bone."

http://www.shearwater.nl/index.php?file=kop126.php

The alula (thumb wing) consists of one phalanx (occasionally two, sometimes even with a nail in some bird species). The alula is present in all birds except the penguins, where it is fused to the carpomatacarpus. It is a freely movable digit with a few small feathers attached. The function of the alula is not yet fully understood. Ornithologists suggest that one function among others is in the landing because it can make a change in the airflow and turbulence along the wing edge. The alula articulates to the carpometacarpus near the wrist.
There has been discussion about whether the alula is really a thumb or an index finger remaining after an evolutionary adaptation. Recent genetic research has shown that the alula is a real thumb and the other two the 'index finger' and 'middle finger'. The outer two fingers are lost (Kaiser 2007).

Arm section

1. Upper arm - humerus
2. Sesamoid bone - os sesamoides.
3. Ulna - ulna
4. Radius - Radius

Hand section (manus)

5. Wrist - radiale and ulnare
6. Metacarpal - carpometacarpus
7. Thumb - alula
8. Digits - phalanges

Notice that the alula is VERY similar to the pteroid bone.

Seriema

2011-10-16T08:53:00.000-07:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seriema

The seriemas are the sole extant members of the small and ancient familyCariamidae, which is also the sole surviving family of the Cariamae. Once believed to be related to cranes, they have been placed by one recent study near the falcons, parrots and passerines.^[1] There are two species:

Red-legged Seriema, or Crested Cariama, Cariama cristata. This is found from eastern Brazil, to central Argentina. It is bigger and nests on the ground or in a bush or tree up to 3 m (9.8 ft) above the ground.
Black-legged Seriema, Chunga burmeisteri. This is found in northwest Argentina and Paraguay. It nests in a tree.

The seriemas have an extensible second claw that is raised from the ground. This resembles the "sickle claw" of Velociraptor and its relatives.

Paraphyletic = Ancestral

2011-10-14T07:23:00.000-07:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dromaeosauridae#Flying_and_gliding
"As late as 2001, Mark Norell and colleagues analyzed a large survey of coelurosaur [maniraptor] fossils and produced the tentative result that dromaeosaurids were most closely related to birds, with troodontids as a more distant outgroup. They even suggested that Dromaeosauridae could be paraphyletic [ancestral] relative to Avialae."

I am quoting this because it sheds light on the word "paraphyletic".
"Paraphyletic" means ANCESTRAL!

It would be a helpful exercise to substitute the word "ancestral" whenever we see the word "paraphyletic".

There is certainly nothing wrong with being "paraphyletic" since it simply means ANCESTRAL.

Neoteny

2011-10-13T11:23:00.000-07:00

For reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeognathae
"Other authors have questioned the monophyly of the Palaeognathae on various grounds, suggesting that they could be a hodgepodge of unrelated birds that have come to be grouped together because they are coincidentally flightless. One point is that unrelated birds have developed somewhat ratite-like anatomies multiple times around the world through convergent evolution. McDowell (1948)) asserted that the similarities in the palate anatomy of paleognathes might actually be neoteny, or retained embryonic features. He noted that there were other feature of the skull, such as the retention of sutures into adulthood, that were like those of juvenile birds. Thus, perhaps the characteristic palate was actually a frozen stage that many carinate bird embryos passed through during development. The retention of early developmental stages, then, may have been the mechanism by which various birds became flightless and came to look similar to one another.[19]"

Notice that this relates to not just flightlessness, but also the palate:
"Thus, perhaps the characteristic palate was actually a frozen stage that many carinate bird embryos passed through during development. "

Origin of flightlessness

2011-10-11T17:08:00.000-07:00

This research requires some changes be made to what I have proposed concerning flightless birds. Flightless birds will have to be integrated into multiple lines. For simplicity I had them in one single line.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100126105429.htm

"Their molecular dating study suggests that the ancestors of the African ostrich, Australasian emu plus cassowary, South American rheas and New Zealand moa became flightless independently, in close association with the extinction of the dinosaurs about 65 million years ago.

"Many of the world's largest flightless birds, known as ratites, were thought to have shared a common flightless ancestor. We followed up on recent uncertainty surrounding this assumption," said Dr Phillips.

"Our study suggests that the flighted ancestors of ratites appear to have been ground-feeding birds that ran well. So the extinction of the dinosaurs likely lifted predation pressures that had previously selected for flight and its necessary constraint, small size. Lifting of this pressure and more abundant foraging opportunities would then have selected for larger size and consequent loss of flight.

The finding of independent origins of flightlessness also solves a mystery of how these flightless birds dispersed across the world over marine barriers -- their ancestors flew."

Neutrino

2011-10-07T19:11:00.001-07:00

“We don’t allow faster-than-light neutrinos in here,” says the bartender.

A neutrino walks into a bar.

Organizing the Material

2011-10-07T10:33:00.001-07:00

There is a huge amount of material in this blog and it is a challenge to organize it.

I will organize it by type of bird such as those from my Dec 17, 2010 post (which I have updated a bit recently). I will set up a separate thread for each and then add info to each thread.

Categories:

I will also set up GENERAL threads on common topics.

Landbirds (Owl)

2011-10-07T10:32:00.000-07:00

Landbirds (Owl)

Pterosaur (eg. Dsungaripteridae) -->
Troodontid subgroup -->
Primitive owls, eg. Bradycneme and Heptasteornis ( Alvarezsauridae? Troodontid? Sophiornithidae? ) -->
Strigiformes (eg. owls), Caprimulgiformes (eg. nighthawks)

Dsungaripteridae
http://frankdenota.blackhydra.com/gallery1.htm

Troodontid
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/Meilong_mmartyniuk_wiki.png/250px-Meilong_mmartyniuk_wiki.png

Owl
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/Northern_Spotted_Owl.USFWS-thumb.jpg/220px-Northern_Spotted_Owl.USFWS-thumb.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troodontidae
Troodontid ears were also asymmetrical, with one ear placed higher on the skull than the other, a feature shared only with some owls. The extreme specialization of the ears may indicate that troodontids hunted in a manner similar to owls, using their hearing to locate small prey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owl
"The supposed 'Cretaceous owls' Bradycneme (Alvarezsauridae) and Heptasteornis (Alvarezsauridae) are apparently non-avialan maniraptors."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophiornithidae
Sophiornithidae (literally "Wisdom Birds"), was a family of chicken-sized predatory birds that lived from the Paleocene to the Eocene periods of the Cenozoic, and were found primarily in Europe, and are thought to be primitive owls

This chart shows that owls have their own separate lineage (within the landbird branch) which supports what I have proposed concerning owls:

http://dragonsoftheair.wordpress.com/

"I wanted to quickly draw attention to a part of the wing that often gets overlooked…..the hair-like [feather-like?] structures along the trailing edge. Kellner et al. 2009 published a small photograph of this

Combs along the trailing edge of the wing (or turbine when we enter the realm of man-made machines) are known to reduce the noise produced by the animal during flight by collapsing the vortex shed off the wing. There is quite a bit of literature on this subject but its function in biological flight could warrant further attention. Owls are certainly the most famous example where these structures are used to reduce the noise produced by the wings

The examples above show just how similar the trailing edge structures of the wing in Jeholopterus (E) are when compared to those of an owl (A, B) and the obvious differences they have with those of a noisy flier, in this case a pigeon (C, D). While I am in no way trying to compare the functionality of a feather with that of the pterosaur membrane, the presence of trailing edge structures would almost certainly function in a similar way to other noise reduction structures.

Jeholopterus shares a couple of similarities with that of the barn owl: they both use a slow flight while hunting and both were active during times of darkness or at least periods of low light, but there the similarities end. Jeholopterus was almost certainly an insectivore rather than hunting small vertebrates and so it is not immediately apparent how effective a noise reducing structure like this would have been (hearing range of insects anyone?). So could Jeholopterus have used its trailing edge structures to break down the vortex shed off its wing? If so it would have flapped and glided over the darkening Mesozoic landscape using a combination of slow flight speed, high maneouverability and specialised fibres to reduce the noise frequency of the wings, snapping up insects as it went. Certainly some food for thought regardless."

Landbirds (General)

2011-10-07T10:25:00.000-07:00

LANDBIRDS

Pterosaur (eg. Dsungaripteridae) ->
Dromaeosaurid subgroup (eg. Microraptor, Rahonavis) -->
An Enantiornithes landbird subgroup -->
Modern landbird groups (eg. Passerines, Falconiformes etc)

Dsungaripteridae
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQwIVjRM1tjgqzSDERUQlEL0mEWXATT6M0cUsp5LnjiQATjX5DQ

Dromaeosaurid
http://www.wikidino.com/wp-content/uploads/Microraptor-notexactlyrocetscience.files_.wordpress.jpg

Enantiornithes
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/Iberomesornis-model.jpg/250px-Iberomesornis-model.jpg

Modern Land Bird
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/House_sparrow04.jpg/220px-House_sparrow04.jpg

Landfowl

2011-10-07T10:21:00.000-07:00

LANDFOWL

Pterosaur -->
Dromaeosaurid subgroup (eg. Microraptor, Rahonavis) -->
Primitive flying birds (Enantiornithes) -->
Modern "Galliformes"(eg. Chicken, Turkey, Pheasant, Quail) and Tinamiformes (Tinamou)

Dromaeosaurid

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Velociraptor_dinoguy2.jpg

Fowl
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/Sonnerathuhn.jpg/240px-Sonnerathuhn.jpg

Tinamou
http://leesbirdblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/red-winged-tinamou-rhynchotus-rufescens-by-c2a9wiki.jpg

Waterfowl

2011-10-07T10:17:00.000-07:00

WATERFOWL (Presbyornithes line)

Pterosaur (eg. Ctenochasmatidae ) --->
Presbyornithid subgroup-->
Modern Anseriformes (eg. Duck, Geese , Swan)

AND

Pterosaur (Ctenochasmatidae) Pterodaustro --->
Presbyornithid subgroup-->
Primitive bird, Palaelodidae (Phoenicopteriformes) -->
Flamingo (Phoenicopteriformes)

(Note: Vegavis may well be a part of this lineage. This needs more analysis.)

Presbyornis
http://critters.pixel-shack.com/WebImages/crittersgallery/Presbyornis.jpg

Goose
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSJyZpdECUBlK3R-w2hXaS2_jUCFQHFk3UU17xq8ROiFcsjB7ZTDjG7gW8V_w

Flamingo
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/Flamingos_Laguna_Colorada.jpg/250px-Flamingos_Laguna_Colorada.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyornithidae
Presbyornithidae were a family of waterbirds with an apparently global distribution that lived until the Earliest Oligocene, but are now extinct. Initially, they were believed to present a mix of characters shown by waterbirds,shorebirds and flamingos and were used to argue for an evolutionary relationship between these groups (Feduccia 1976), but they are now generally accepted to be "wading ducks", the sister taxon [actually the ancestor] of the Anatidae, and thus essentially modern waterbirds. They were generally long-legged, long-necked birds, standing around one meter high, with the body of a duck, feet similar to a wader but webbed, and a flat duck-like bill adapted for filter feeding. Apparently, at least some species were very social birds that lived in large flocks and nested in colonies.

As the "wading duck" moniker implies, they were waterfowl whose elongated legs enabled them to live a lifestyle similar to the "proto-flamingos" (e.g., Palaelodus) - which were not really ancestors of the modern flamingos, but a group that evolved in parallel with them and in fact seems to have taken over part of the presbyornithid's ecological niche after the latter became extinct. Thus, while probably somewhat capable of swimming, they would have preferred to strain the shallow waters of their habitat for food and were also able to snatch up insects and small crustaceans on dry land, just like some species of modern ducks, e.g., the Laysan Duck, hunt for brine flies.

Presbyornithids
Temporal range: Late Cretaceous? - Oligocene

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyornis
Presbyornis is an extinct genus of anseriform bird. It contains two unequivocally accepted species; the well-known P. pervetus and the much lesser-known P. isoni. P. pervetus was approximately the size and shape of a goose, but with longer legs; P. isoni, known from a few bones, was much larger, more than swan-sized. Other fossils, more doubtfully assigned to this genus, are also known.

Judging from numerous fossil findings, Presbyornis is presumed to have lived in colonies around shallow lakes. Its broad, flat bill was used to filter food (small plants and animals) from the water, in the manner of today's dabbling ducks.^[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galloanserae
"Fowl were the first neognath lineages to evolve. From the limitedfossils that have to date been recovered, the conclusion that they were already widespread - the predominant group of modern birds - by end of the Cretaceous is generally accepted nowadays.Fossils such as Vegavis indicate that essentially modern waterfowl - albeit belonging to a nowadays extinctlineage - were contemporaries of the (non-avian)dinosaurs.

Note:

It says "albeit belonging to a nowadays extinct lineage". It should say that the Vegavis developed into modern waterfowl.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegavis
"Vegavis is a genus of extinct bird that lived during the Late Cretaceous (Maastrichtian stage) of Antarctica, some 65 mya. It belonged to the clade Anseriformes. Among modern birds,Vegavis is most closely related to ducks and geese (Anatidae), but it is not considered to be a direct ancestor of them." [However it possibly should be considered a direct ancestor of them].
The discovery of the type species, Vegavis iaai, demonstrates that the major groups of bird alive today had already diversified in the Cretaceous. This supports the longstanding phylogenetic inferences of paleornithologists.^{[citation needed]} It has been hailed as the first definitive physical proof that representatives of some of the groups of modern birds lived in theMesozoic.^[1]"

http://www.digimorph.org/specimens/Vegavis_iaai/nature03150.pdf
and
http://www.livescience.com/animals/050125_dino_chickens.html

"We have more data than ever to propose at least the beginnings of the radiation of all living birds in the Cretaceous," Clarke says. "We now know that duck and chicken relatives coexisted with non-avian dinosaurs. This does not mean that today's chicken and duck species lived with non-avian dinosaurs, but that the evolutionary lineages leading to today's chicken and duck species did." (Julia A. Clarke1,2, Claudia P. Tambussi3, Jorge I. Noriega4,
Gregory M. Erickson5,6,7 & Richard A. Ketcham8)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamingo
Relationships to the waterfowl were considered as well,^[3] especially as flamingos and waterfowl are parasitized by feather lice of the genus Anaticola, which are otherwise exclusively found on ducks and geese.^[4]

Aquatic Birds

2011-10-07T10:14:00.000-07:00

AQUATIC BIRDS (Hesperornithes line)

Pterosaur (Ctenochasmatoidea) eg. Pterodactylus -->
Baptornithidae (Hesperornithes) -->
(primarily foot-propelled) WEB FOOT diving bird orders, eg. Cormorants (Phalacrocoracidae), Loons (Gaviidae).

AND

Pterosaur (Ctenochasmatoidea) eg. Pterodactylus -->

Hesperornithidae (Hesperornithes) -->

(primarily foot-propelled) LOBE FOOT diving bird orders eg. Grebes (Podicipedidae).

Hesperonis
http://oceansofkansas.com/Hesperornis/hespercb.jpg

Baptornis
http://oceansofkansas.com/Hesperornis/martin60.jpg

Loon
http://bwfov.typepad.com/birders_world_field_of_vi/images/2007/07/18/loon_2.jpg

Grebe
http://maslowskiwildlife.com/photos/A%20PHOTO%20SAMPLER/slides/46%20Grebe,%20horned%20-%20w%20minnnow,%20winter%20plumage%20underwater%2016487.jpg

Videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQya_S0oFx8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIOTp8b1b2U
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQme1IrGlEU
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOXMfe2SAWA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDG_e2IgrFc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesperornis
"Hesperornis is an extinct genus of flightless aquatic birds that lived during the Santonian to Campanian sub-epochs of the Late Cretaceous (89–65 mya).
Although some of the smaller species might have been able to fly,Hesperornis and Baptornis had only vestigial wings. Like living foot-propelled diving birds, the femur and metatarsus were short, whereas the tibia was long. The legs were also set far back on the body, as in loons, grebes or penguins."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grebe
"The cladistics vs. phenetics debate of the mid-20th century revived scientific interest in generalizing comparisons. As a consequence, the discredited grebe-loon link was discussed again. This even went as far as proposing monophyly for grebes, loons, and the toothed Hesperornithiformes "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesperornithidae
These birds were originally combined with Ichthyornis in the paraphyletic "Odontornithes" by Othniel Charles Marsh, in 1873. In 1875, they were separated as Odontolcae. The group was often considered to be allied to loons and grebes,^[4]or to the Paleognathae.^[5] These similarities, however, as the more recently determined fact that the osteons of their bones - at least in Hesperornis - were arranged in a pattern similar to that in Neognathae,^[6] are today considered to be due to convergent evolution.^[7]

http://archive.peabody.yale.edu/scipubs/bulletins_postillas/ypmP207_1991.pdf

"The skull of Hesperornis proves to be neognathous in the majority of diagnostic
characters including the presence of the intrapterygoid joint."

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2413412
"A cladistic analysis of the skeletons of loons (Gaviidae), grebes (Podicipedidae), and the Cretaceous diving birds, Hesperornisand Baptornis, supports the hypothesis that they form a monophyletic group (here called the Gaviomorphae) within the class Aves. Two lineages within the gaviomorphs can be delineated: (1) loons + grebes, and (2) Hesperornis + Baptornis. The Early Cretaceous Enaliornis and the Late Cretaceous Neogaeornis are related to the second lineage; the Late Cretaceous Lonchodytes, often placed near loons, is apparently not a gaviomorph but perhaps a charadriiform. Skeletal evidence also suggests that penguins (Spheniscidae) are the sister-group of the Gaviomorphae. Arguments that similarities of gaviomorph taxa represent convergence are not well founded. First, morphological differences among taxa do not constitute valid evidence against their monophyly, as many previous workers have argued. Second, in no case has anyone supporting convergence presented a corroborated alternative phylogenetic hypothesis. A close relationship among gaviomorphs, penguins, and apparently also the Procellariiformes and Pelecaniformes implies that a lineage of aquatic birds was established very early in avian history, presumably in the Early Cretaceous or Late Jurassic." (Joel Cracraft 1982)

Looks like Joel Cracraft was on the right track!
(Note the issue here is not whether grebes and loons go together but that hesperornithiformes is linked to modern birds such as grebes and/or loons.)

I was quite surprised/pleased to see this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_birds
"In traditional classification, the Neornithes also included a third superorder, the Odontognathae, containing advanced toothed birds from the Cretaceous, like Hesperornis and Ichthyornis.[5] This superorder is likely paraphyletic [ANCESTRAL], and fall outside [ancestral to] the crown group birds. It is not entirely clear whether the Palaeognathae too are paraphyletic, or represent a primitve grade of birds.[6]"

This seems to be saying exactly what I have been saying.
Modern bird taxa developed from such taxa as Hesperornithes and Ichthyornithes etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diving_bird

Diving birds are birds which plunge into water to catch fish or other food. They may enter the water from flight, as does the brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), or they may dive from the surface of the water. More than likely they evolved from birds already adapted for swimming that were equipped with such adaptations as lobed or webbed feet forpropulsion.

Foot-propelled diving birds

Some diving birds - for example, the extinct Hesperornithes of the Cretaceous Period - propelled themselves with their feet. They were large, streamlined, flightless birds with teeth for grasping slippery prey. Today, Cormorants (familyPhalacrocoracidae), Loons (Gaviidae), and Grebes (Podicipedidae) are the major groups of foot propelled diving birds.

Wing-propelled diving birds

Other diving birds are wing - propelled, most notably the Penguins (Sphenisciformes), Dippers (Cinclus) and Auks(Alcidae).

Waders/Shorebirds

2011-10-07T10:09:00.000-07:00

WADERS/SHOREBIRDS

Pterosaur (Azhdarchoidea) --->
Primitive shorebird (eg. Graculavus) -->
Modern shorebirds - eg. plovers, oystercatchers, sandpipers (Charadriiformes/Charadrii)

Shorebirds
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Calidris-pusilla-001.jpg/240px-Calidris-pusilla-001.jpg

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSti0mLreJDIJf4JDMrbXj6kw943T638pvojNtaXc_1V41DNMfR4g

Shorebird video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c44H8KTSMDU&feature=related

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graculavus
Graculavus is the namesake for the form taxon "Graculavidae", a plesiomorphic assembly of unrelated birds that were believed to hold a key position in avian evolution as "transitional shorebirds." Two species are known: Graculavus augustus from the Western Interior Seaway and Graculavus velox from the Atlantic Seaboard.^[1]

Seabirds

2011-10-07T10:03:00.001-07:00

SEABIRDS (Ichthyornithes line)

Pterosaur (Ornithocheiroidea) eg. Pteranodon -->
An Ichthyornithes subgroup -->
Gulls, Skimmers (Charadriiformes/Lari)

AND

Pterosaur (Ornithocheiroidea) eg. Pteranodon -->
An Ichthyornithes subgroup -->
Petrels, Albatross (Procellariiformes), Sphenisciformes

Pteranodon
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRELWfZfbBLyUpBPZEkcMkeV9w4thn2BmbN82bMHnP1QamZ5RZbnw

Ichthyornis

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f2/Ichthyornis_BW.jpg/250px-Ichthyornis_BW.jpg

Gull
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR2UeyXGupzzv6pOMmTX32mpZH3gxh_U--uwtGIIJZYogntzqnK

Albatross
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRKRgWuWMW9NV8vBRkOs5biyoO2nEPrsV5WqWEQRUqJ3rK_xtHNqA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seabird
"There exists no single definition of which groups, families, and species are seabirds, and most definitions are in some way arbitrary. In the words of two seabird scientists, "The one common characteristic that all seabirds share is that they feed insaltwater; but, as seems to be true with any statement in biology, some do not."^[2] However, by convention all of theSphenisciformes and Procellariiformes, all of thePelecaniformes except the darters, and some of the Charadriiformes (the skuas, gulls, terns, auks andskimmers) are classified as seabirds. The phalaropes are usually included as well, since although they are waders("shorebirds" in North America), two of the three species are oceanic for nine months of the year, crossing the equator to feed pelagically.
Loons and grebes, which nest on lakes but winter at sea, are usually categorized as water birds, not seabirds.Although there are a number of sea ducks in the family Anatidae which are truly marine in the winter, by convention they are usually excluded from the seabird grouping. Many waders (or shorebirds) and herons are also highly marine, living on the sea's edge (coast), but are also not treated as seabirds."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pteranodon
"The wing shape of Pteranodon suggests that it would have flown rather like a modern-day albatross. This is based on the fact that Pteranodon had a high aspect ratio (wingspan to chord length) similar to that of the albatross — 9:1 for Pteranodon, compared to 8:1 for an albatross. Albatrosses spend long stretches of time at sea fishing, and use a flight pattern called "dynamic soaring" which exploits the vertical gradient of wind speed near the ocean surface to travel long distances without flapping, and without the aid of thermals (which do not occur over the open ocean the same way they do over land).[11] While most of a Pteranodon flight would have depended on soaring, like long-winged seabirds, it probably required an occasional active, rapid burst of flapping, and studies of Pteranodon wing loading (the strength of the wings vs. the weight of the body) indicate that they were capable of substantial flapping flight, contrary to some earlier suggestions that they were so big they could only glide.[3]"

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.20990/pdf
"Interestingly, a Lesser Black-Backed Gull and an unrelated charadriiform seabird
with similar flight modes also showed histological similarity to the Procellariiiformes [eg. albatross] studied."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procellariidae

"According to the famous DNA hybridization study into avian phylogenetic relationships by Sibley and Ahlquist, the split of the Procellariiformes into the four families occurred around 30 million years ago; a fossil bone often attributed to the order, described as the genus Tytthostonyx, has been found in rocks dating around the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary (70-60 mya), but the remains are too incomplete for placement within the Procellariiformes to be certain.[2] The molecular evidence suggests that the [swimming] storm-petrels were the first to diverge [develop] from the ancestral stock [ichthyornithes], and the albatrosses next, with the procellariids and diving petrels splitting [developing] most recently. Many taxonomists used to retain the diving petrels in this family also, but today their distinctiveness is considered well supported."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyornis
"It is thought that Ichthyornis was the Cretaceous ecological equivalent of modern seabirds such as gulls, petrels, and skimmers. It was the size of a pigeon, 24 centimetres (9.4 in) long, with a skeletal wingspan (not taking feathers into account) of around 43 centimetres (17 in).^[3]"
The jaw tips had no teeth and were covered in a beak. The beak of Ichthyornis, like the hesperornithids and other primitive birds, was compound and made up of several distinct plates, similar to the beak of an albatross, rather than a single sheet of keratin as in most modern birds.^[4]
Although the wings and breastbone were very modern in appearance (suggesting strong flight ability and placing it withmodern birds in the advanced group Carinatae), the jaws had numerous small, sharp teeth.

http://dinogoss.blogspot.com/2011/01/theropods-that-fit-bill.html
Interestingly, studies of ichthyornithines and hesperornithine bone structure shows that they likely had "compound rhamphotheca", and this may have been the ancestral condition for modern birds (Heironymous & Witmer, 2010). While the quintessential bird beak is made up of a single keratin sheet covering the jaw, in species with compound beaks, the keratin is arranged in discrete plates on the jaws. This can best be seen in some modern seabirds like the Albatross.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird
"The first large, diverse lineage of short-tailed birds to evolve were the Enantiornithes, or "opposite birds", so named because the construction of their shoulder bones was in reverse to that of modern birds. Enantiornithes occupied a wide array of ecological niches, from sand-probing shorebirds and fish-eaters to tree-dwelling forms and seed-eaters.^[22] More advanced lineages also specialised in eating fish, like the superficially gull-like subclass of Ichthyornithes (fish birds)."^[23]

http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/tmp/i0003-0090-286-01-0001.pdf
Five unambiguous autapomorphies of Ichthyornis dispar are identified in the phylogenetic
analysis (i.e., 52, 66, 103, 132, 152;
each is discussed in the Taxonomic Revision
of Part I): (52:0) amphicoelous cervical vertebrae,
(66:1) proximal free caudal vertebrae
with well-developed prezygapophyses clasping
the dorsal surface of preceding vertebra,
(103:1) unprojected acromion on scapula,
(132:1) subequal posterior and distal dimensions
of the distal articular surface of ulna,
and (152:1) internal index process present.
Of these characters, two (i.e., 66, 152) are
also seen in Charadriiformes and some other
neoavians but not in the included Aves. This
distribution, and the absence of these morphologies
in other basal avialans, is consistent
with the hypothesis (e.g., Marsh, 1880)
that several derived aspects of the anatomy
of Ichthyornis dispar may be convergent [actually homologous] on
charadriiform morphologies. It does not,
however, support these structures, or ‘‘shorebird’’
morphologies generally, as ancestral to
Aves, as has often been argued (Feduccia,
1995, 1999).
[The last sentence is an unsupported assertion.]

http://si-pddr.si.edu/dspace/bitstream/10088/6553/1/VZ_167_Fossil_Record_of_Birds.pdf

Unlike Hesperornis, the species of Ichthyornis were obviously flying
birds. They were the size of gulls or terns and may have had somewhat
similar habits, as Marsh (1880) suggested long ago. It was probably this
allusion that prompted many authors (see those cited by Lambrecht, 1933,
p. 581) to place Ichthyornis near the Charadriiformes. This is certainly
unjustified, as it is likely that Ichthyornis is a relict of an earlier radiation on
a line quite apart from modern birds, The enormous deltoid crest in
Ichthyornis is unique among birds in size, shape, and orientation, as noted
by the original describer and later redundantly by Harrison (1973). The
palate is unknown in Ichthyornis and there is no reason to suppose that these
birds were even neognathous."

And if the palate is unknown then there is no reason NOT to suppose these birds were neognathous.

I was quite surprised/pleased to see this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_birds
"In traditional classification, the Neornithes also included a third superorder, the Odontognathae, containing advanced toothed birds from the Cretaceous, like Hesperornis and Ichthyornis.[5] This superorder is likely paraphyletic [ANCESTRAL], and fall outside [is ancestral to] the crown group birds. It is not entirely clear whether the Palaeognathae too are paraphyletic [ancestral], or represent a primitve grade of birds.[6]"

This seems to be saying exactly what I have been saying.
Modern birds developed from such primitive bird taxa as Hesperornithes and Ichthyornithes.

Flightless Birds

2011-10-07T10:02:00.000-07:00

FLIGHTLESS BIRDS (Ratites)

Pterosaur -->
Dromaeosaurid (eg. Microraptor, Rahonavis) subgroup -->
Ornithomimosaurids (+ Avimimus?) -->
Modern ratites (Ostrich (Struthio), Rhea (Rheidae), Cassowary, Emu (Casuariidae), Kiwi (Apteryx))

Dromaeosaurid

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Velociraptor_dinoguy2.jpg

Ornithomimid

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQUZyHHxpsZ6l6e9Le4wNEfxkTjkZTxuSQn3cdcKJVmTjARHqvG

Ostrich

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/FlappingOstriches.jpg/643px-FlappingOstriches.jpg

Cassowary
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Casuarius_casuarius_-Brevard_Zoo-8a.jpg/250px-Casuarius_casuarius_-Brevard_Zoo-8a.jpg

Kiwi
http://0.tqn.com/d/goaustralia/1/0/9/i/kiwi.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinonychus
"Ostrom compared Deinonychus to the ostrich and cassowary. He noted that the bird species can inflict serious injury with the large claw on the second toe.[1]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornithomimidae

The Ornithomimosauria, ornithomimosaurs ("bird-mimic lizards") or ostrich dinosaurs^[1] were theropod dinosaurs which bore a superficial resemblance to modern ostriches. They were fast, omnivorous or herbivorous dinosaurs [maniraptors] from the Cretaceous Period of Laurasia (now Asia, Europe and North America).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassowary

A cassowary's three-toed feet have sharp claws. The second toe, the inner one in the medial position, sports a dagger-like claw that is 125 millimetres (5 in) long.^[6] This claw is particularly fearsome since cassowaries sometimes kick humans and animals with their enormously powerful legs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avimimus
Avimimus meaning "bird mimic", was a genus of bird-like maniraptoran dinosaur [maniraptor] that lived in the late Cretaceous in what is now Mongolia, around 70 million years ago.

Organizing the material

2011-10-07T09:53:00.000-07:00

There is a huge amount of material in this blog and it is a challenge to organize it.
I will try organizing it by type of bird such as those from my Dec 17, 2010 post (which I have updated a bit recently). I will set up a separate thread for each and then add info to each thread.

Categories:
Flightless birds
Seabirds (Ichthyornithes line)
Waders/shorebirds
Aquatic birds (Hesperornithes line)

Waterfowl (Presebyornithid line)

Landfowl

Landbirds (general)

Landbirds (Owl)

Visualizing the idea

2011-10-07T08:24:00.000-07:00

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Neornithes.jpg

This chart is far from being correct but it does give the idea of separate branches leading to specific kinds of modern birds. For example visualize the line entitled Ichthyornithiformes continuing into a modern bird line and also Presbyornithidae continuing into a modern bird line - then you are getting closer to visualizing what I am saying.
This would be more complete if it had a line for Hesperornithes (which would lead to another line of modern birds).
Please note that I am not endorsing this chart in total, but it does present the idea of separate lines leading to lines of modern birds.

For example, you can see from this diagram that anseriformes and galliformes are branches that run "parallel" to the other lines up to the current time.
Those are two of the lines I am talking about.

You can also see that the diagram includes presbyornithidae and ichthyornithiformes but has them ending at 66 mya. I am proposing that like the other "parallel lines" those lines continued to modern bird lines.

There is more to it than that but this diagram shows how current thinking accepts parallel lines and with almost no change, it is what I am proposing.

Something to Note

2011-10-06T12:59:00.000-07:00

We see in the earlier posts the similarity between:
Baptornithidae (Hesperornithes) AND (primarily foot-propelled) WEB FOOT diving bird orders, eg. Cormorants (Phalacrocoracidae), Loons (Gaviidae)
AND BETWEEN
Hesperornithidae (Hesperornithes) AND (primarily foot-propelled) LOBE FOOT diving bird orders eg. Grebes (Podicipedidae)
AND BETWEEN
Presbyornithids AND duck, geese and swan (Anseriformes)

Currently these similarities are considered to be due to convergence (evolutionary relay). I am suggesting they are ancestral.
This is something to note:
Cladists decline to identify* the ancestors of these birds (cormorants, loons, grebes, duck, geese and swan). But they are not ruling out that the ancestors may in fact be the ones I just listed. They are just not talking a position on that.

*They decline to identify the ancestors of all birds.

Waterfowl

2011-10-04T19:30:00.000-07:00

Let's look a little deeper at the waterfowl (waterbird) line:
This is what we have to this point:

WATERFOWL (Anatidae)

Pterosaur --->
A Dromaeosaurid subgroup -->
An Enantiornithes waterbird subgroup -->

Presbyornithids-->
Modern Anseriformes (eg. Duck, Geese , Swan)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyornithidae

Presbyornithidae were a family of waterbirds with an apparently global distribution that lived until the Earliest Oligocene, but are now extinct. Initially, they were believed to present a mix of characters shown by waterbirds,shorebirds and flamingos and were used to argue for an evolutionary relationship between these groups (Feduccia 1976), but they are now generally accepted to be "wading ducks", the sister taxon [actually the ancestor] of the Anatidae, and thus essentially modern waterbirds. They were generally long-legged, long-necked birds, standing around one meter high, with the body of a duck, feet similar to a wader but webbed, and a flat duck-like bill adapted for filter feeding. Apparently, at least some species were very social birds that lived in large flocks and nested in colonies.

Enantiornithes Taxonomy

2011-10-04T09:52:00.000-07:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enantiornithes

Taxonomy

Subclass Enantiornithes

Basal Enantiornithes and Enantiornithes incerta sedis
- "Cathayornis" chabuensis (Early Cretaceous of Chabu, China) – cathayornithid?
- Dapingfangornis (Early Cretaceous)
- Enantiornithes gen. et sp. indet. CAGS-IG-02-0901 (Xiagou Early Cretaceous of Mazongshan, China)
- Enantiornithes gen. et sp. indet. CAGS-IG-04-CM-023 (Xiagou Early Cretaceous of Changma, China)^[29]
- Huoshanornis (Early Cretaceous) – Euenantiornithes?
- "Liaoxiornis" (Early Cretaceous) – a nomen dubium
- Pengornis (Early Cretaceous)
- Qiliania (Xiagou Early Cretaceous)
- Elsornis (Late Cretaceous) – close to Flexomornis?
- Enantiornithes gen. et sp. indet. (Late Cretaceous of Cruzy, France)^[30]
- Enantiornithes gen. et sp. indet. MCSNM V3882a (Late Cretaceous of Ouadi al Gabour, Lebanon)
- Enantiornithes gen. et sp. indet. MZ unnumbered (Adamantina Late Cretaceous of Presidente Prudente, Brazil) – enantiornithiform?
- Enantiornithes gen. et sp. indet. Patrick Mechin collection 606 (Late Cretaceous of Bastide-Neuve, France) – alexornithid?^[31]
- Flexomornis (Late Cretaceous) – close to Elsornis?
Order Iberomesornithiformes
- Family Iberomesornithidae
  - Enantiornithes gen. et sp. indet. CAGS-IG-07-CM-001
  - Iberomesornis (Early Cretaceous)
  - Noguerornis (Early Cretaceous)
Superorder Euenantiornithes
- Basal Euenantiornithes
  - Eoalulavis (Early Cretaceous)
- Euenantiornithes incerta sedis
  - Bohaiornis (Early Cretaceous)
  - Cuspirostrisornis (Early Cretaceous)
  - Eoenantiornis (Early Cretaceous)
  - Elbretornis (Late Cretaceous)
  - Enantiornithes gen. et sp. indet. CAGS-IG-04-CM-007 (Early Cretaceous)^[32]
  - Enantiornithes gen. et sp. indet. RBCM.EH2005.003.0002 (Late Cretaceous)^[33]
  - Gurilynia (Late Cretaceous) – enantiornithiform?
  - Hebeiornis (Early Cretaceous) – possibly a nomen nudum; see Vescornis and Jibeinia
  - Martinavis (Late Cretaceous)
  - Largirostrornis (Early Cretaceous)
  - Lectavis (Late Cretaceous) – enantiornithiform?
  - Lenesornis (Late Cretaceous)
  - Longchengornis (Early Cretaceous)
  - Yungavolucris (Late Cretaceous) – enantiornithiform?
- Family Kuszholiidae (disputed)
  - Kuszholia (Late Cretaceous)
- Order Alexornithiformes (disputed)
  - Family Alexornithidae
    - Alexornis (Late Cretaceous)
    - Kizylkumavis (Late Cretaceous)
    - Sazavis (Late Cretaceous)
- Order Protopterygiformes^[34]
  - Family Protopterygidae^[34]
    - Protopteryx (Early Cretaceous)^[35]
- Order Longipterygiformes
  - Family Longipterygidae
    - Boluochia (Early Cretaceous)^[36]
    - "Camptodontus" (Jiufotang Early Cretaceous of Chaoyang City, China)^[37]
    - Longipteryx (Early Cretaceous)
    - Longirostravis (Early Cretaceous)
    - Rapaxavis (Jiufotang Early Cretaceous of Chaoyang City, China)
    - Shanweiniao (Yixian Early Cretaceous of China)
- Order Cathayornithiformes
  - Family Alethoalaornithidae^[38]
    - Alethoalaornis (Early Cretaceous of Liaoning, China)^[38]
  - Family Cathyornithidae
    - Cathayornis (Early Cretaceous)
    - Eocathayornis (Early Cretaceous)
    - Sinornis (Early Cretaceous)
- Order Gobipterygiformes
  - Family Gobipterygidae
    - Gobipteryx (Late Cretaceous)
    - ? Jibeinia (Early Cretaceous)^[39]
    - Vescornis (Early Cretaceous)^[40]
- Order Enantiornithiformes
  - Family Enantiornithidae (disputed)
    - Enantiornis (Late Cretaceous)
  - Family Avisauridae
    - Avisaurus (Late Cretaceous)
    - Bauxitornis (Late Cretaceous)
    - Concornis (Early Cretaceous)
    - Enantiophoenix
    - Halimornis (Late Cretaceous)
    - Intiornis (Late Cretaceous)
    - Neuquenornis (Late Cretaceous)
    - Soroavisaurus (Late Cretaceous)