Enantiornithes Taxonomy

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)

Enantiornithes Timing

Let's look at some material about the timing of Enantiornithes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enantiornithes
"Enantiornithines have been found in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Known fossils attributable to this group are exclusively Cretaceous and it is believed that enantiornithines became extinct at the same time as their non-avian dinosaur relatives. One biogeographic study in the 1990s^{[citation needed]} suggested that the distribution of enantiornithines implies a Middle Jurassic origin for the clade, but this theory has not been widely accepted by paleoornithologists; a Late Jurassic/Early Cretaceous origin is more in line with the fossil record. The earliest known enantiornithines are from the Early Cretaceous) of Spain (e.g. Noguerornis, a basal genus) and China (e.g. Protopteryx) and the latest from the Late Cretaceous of North and South America (e.g. Avisaurus)."

A bit more detail on a few lines

Here is the work in progress to this point, on a few of the bird lines. Since this is a work in progress I  am certainly open to suggestions and improvements.

SEABIRDS (Ichthyornithes line)

Pterosaur (Ornithocheiroidea) eg Pteranodon -->
A Dromaeosaurid subgroup* -->
An Enantiornithes seabird subgroup -->
An Ichthyornithes subgroup --> Gulls, Skimmers (Charadriiformes/Lari)

AND

Pterosaur (Ornithocheiroidea) eg Pteranodon -->
A Dromaeosaurid subgroup* -->
An Enantiornithes seabird subgroup -->
An Ichthyornithes subgroup --> Petrels, Albatross (Procellariiformes), Sphenisciformes


AQUATIC BIRDS (Hesperornithes line) 

 Pterosaur (Ctenochasmatoidea) eg. Pterodactylus --> 
A Dromaeosaurid subgroup* -->
An Enantiornithes aquatic subgroup --> Baptornithidae (Hesperornithes) --> (primarily foot-propelled) WEB FOOT diving bird orders, eg. Cormorants (Phalacrocoracidae), Loons (Gaviidae).

AND

 Pterosaur (Ctenochasmatoidea) eg. Pterodactylus -->
A Dromaeosaurid subgroup* -->
An Enantiornithes aquatic subgroup --> Hesperornithidae (Hesperornithes) --> (primarily foot-propelled) LOBE FOOT diving bird orders eg. Grebes (Podicipedidae).

See Comments below for more details. 



WADERS/SHOREBIRDS 

Pterosaur (Azhdarchoidea) --->
A Dromaeosaurid subgroup* -->
An Enantiornithes shorebird subgroup --> Primitive shorebird (eg. Graculavus) --> Modern shorebirds - eg. plovers, oystercatchers, sandpipers (Charadriiformes/Charadrii)


LANDBIRDS

Pterosaur (Dsungaripteridae) ->
A Dromaeosaurid subgroup* -->
An Enantiornithes landbird subgroup -->
Primitive Landbird -->
Modern landbird


* Possibilities include: Microraptorinae (eg. Microraptor) and Unenlagiinae (eg. Rahonavis) 

Ornithocheiroids known from the earliest Early Cretaceous

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019566711100125X
Abstract

"The assignment of a fragment of the anterior tip of a pterosaur rostrum from the Cenomanian Cambridge Greensand of eastern England to the ornithocheirid Coloborhynchus capito (Seeley, 1870) is confirmed. The fragment represents partial left and right fused premaxillae and retains broken teeth within alveoli. A width across the palate of 56 mm, a height at the anterior rostrum in excess of 95 mm and a tooth with a diameter of 13 mm at the base of the crown indicates a remarkably large individual, tentatively estimated to have had a skull length in excess of 0.75 m and a wing span of up to 7 m. This fragment represents the largest toothed pterosaur yet reported. This find, and several other large postcranial fragments from the Cambridge Greensand, suggest that ornithocheirids, toothed ornithocheiroids known from the earliest Early to early Late Cretaceous (Valanginian–Cenomanian) achieved very large, but not giant size. Pteranodontids, edentulous ornithocheiroids currently known only from the mid Upper Cretaceous (Coniacian–early Campanian), reached similar dimensions (up to 7.25 m in wing span) but, contrary to popular myth, did not attain the giant sizes (wing spans of 10 m or more) achieved by azhdarchids in the late Late Cretaceous (Campanian–Maastrichtian)."

Flying Ornithocheiroids in the "earliest Early Cretaceous" developed into some of the primitive flying bird taxa later in the Cretaceous.

Scary feet

http://www.blork.org/blorkblog/2005/10/17/eek/

* The Missing SERIES

By the way, it is not just ONE hypothetical most recent common ancestor that is missing in the dino to bird purported lineage - it is a whole series of them along the purported lineage line. Cladistics has not discovered or described ANY of them!

Luckily there are other more common-sense approaches to establishing phylogeny, that includes the effort to determine ancestors and descendants.

Cladistics - a missing link that is always missing

http://www.kheper.net/evolution/systematics/evolutionary.htm
"Also, unlike Cladistics, with it's reliance on a hypothetical Most Recent Common Ancestor that is never actually described or discovered (a missing link that is always missing), Evolutionary systematics gives illustrations of the actual evolution of one species or higher taxon into another."

I am certainly not the only one who has seen the problems with cladistics .

* Dino to bird problem

Here is something noteworthy concerning the dino (non-maniraptor coelurosaur) to bird idea:
There are fossils for a number of taxa in the fossil record. But none of those work out as ancestors. 
Thus it strains credulity that the dino to bird enthusiasts fall back on the story that there is a lack of fossils. 

THERE IS A COMPLETE LACK OF FOSSILS ON THE PURPORTED DINO* TO BIRD LINEAGE.
That is the dino to bird problem.

But as folks must know by now, my main interest is in presenting the case for  pterosaurs as the ancestors of birds, not hashing and re-hashing the problems with the dino to bird idea. .


*Note again that by "dino" I mean non-maniraptor coelurosaurs. They are not ancestral to birds.

Jackie Evancho

To take a break from pterosaurs, I want to bring to your attention Jackie Evancho (if you are not already familiar with this angel).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=H6N_JyDMQf4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5YPC0-gHVo&feature=related


We cannot understand the total of reality with just our intellect and senses. We need the inspiration and insight of emotion. Then we see more deeply.

The significance of the Senter studies

It may be that Senter still does not realize what he has done inadvertently.
He set out to make fun of "creationists" but he has highlighted the Achilles heel of the dino to bird theory.
Generally, articles on the dino to bird theory focus on how maniraptors are birds. And because the writers call maniraptors "dinosaurs", readers are left with the impression that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
But using baraminology, Senter brings to light the separation between dinosaurs (non-maniraptor coelurosaurs) and maniraptors. He calls them the "tyrannosaur cluster" and the "bird-like cluster".
No evidence has EVER been produced for a connection between dinosaurs (non-maniraptor coelurosaurs) and manirpators.
And now Senter documents that they are not connected.
It is too late for Senter to now deny what his data and analysis have shown.

Which one of these is not like the others?

Which one of these is not like the others? Actually there are two, if you look carefully.

Notice also the size depicted for the bird in the top right. It is as big as a tyrannosaurus. This chart is wrong in so many ways.

Pterosaur Bird Correspondences (2)

The Jablonski article is not itself on the topic of pterosaurs to birds. But there are a few points of interest:
1. Jablonski has noted the similarities between specific pterosaurs and specific categories of modern birds. That is something I had noted as well.
2. Jablonski says that pterosaurs "vacated".
In line with what I am saying, the pterosaurs developed into primitive birds -  either through anagenesis or cladogenesis followed by extinction of the pterosaurs.
3. It is worth noting that primitive pterosaurs (Rhamphorhynchus) developed into the advanced pterosaurs (Pterodactylus) presumably in the same way.

Pterosaur Bird Correspondences (1)

http://www.pnas.org/content/98/10/5393.full.pdf

"Over the course of Cenozoic diversification,
other birds did assume modes of life similar to those
vacated by pterosaurs: skimmers may roughly correspond to
Tropeognathus with its keeled jaws, swallows and swifts to
Pterodactylus with its similar size and wing proportions, flamingos
to Pterodaustro with its bristling array of fringe-like teeth, and
perhaps even condors to the enormous Quetzlcoatlus".

More on Facilitated Variation and Wing Development

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl.1/8582.full
Adaptable robust processes can support nonlethal phenotypic variation in other processes, a situation called “accommodation” by West-Eberhard (14). A specific example is the evolution of the tetrapod  [pterosaur] forelimb to a bird or bat wing. Not only did the length and thickness of bones change, but also the associated musculature, nerve connections, and vasculature. Did many regulatory changes occur in parallel, coordinated by selection, to achieve the coevolution of all these tissues in the limb evolving to a wing? The answer comes from studies of limb development showing that muscle, nerve, and vascular founder cells originate in the embryonic trunk and migrate into the developing limb bud, which initially contains only bone and dermis precursors. Muscle precursors are adaptable; they receive signals from developing dermis and bone (17) and take positions relative to them, wherever they are. Then, as noted previously, axons in large numbers extend into the bud from the nerve cord; some fortuitously contact muscle targets and are stabilized, and the rest shrink back. Finally, vascular progenitors enter. Wherever limb cells are hypoxic, they secrete signals that trigger nearby blood vessels to grow into their vicinity (18). 

Pterosaur Wing to Bird Wing

The development of the pterosaur wing to the bird wing requires fewer changes than one might think due to "facilitated variation".

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8582.full
"The adaptability and robustness of normal muscle, nerve, and vascular development have significant implications for evolution, for these processes accommodate to evolutionary change as well. In the case of the evolving wing, if bones undergo regulatory change (driven by genetic change) in length and thickness, the muscles, nerves and vasculature will accommodate to those changes without requiring independent regulatory change. Coevolution is avoided. Selection does not have to coordinate multiple independently varying parts. Hence, less genetic change is needed, lethality is reduced, larger phenotypic changes are viable, and phenotypic variation is facilitated." (John Gerhart and Marc Kirschner 2007)

The Senter Fundamental Insight

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2011.02349.x/abstract
"The results of this study indicate that transitional fossils linking at least four major dinosaurian groups to the rest of Dinosauria are yet to be found."(P. Senter, 2011)

I think this is the first time an evolutionist has told the simple truth.  There are no transitional fossils between actual dinosaurs (such as Compsognathus and Tyrannosaurus) and Maniraptors. 

Senter Strikes Again

Senter shows that Maniraptors are not related to dinosaurs:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2011.02349.x/abstract
"Creationist literature claims that sufficient gaps in morphological continuity exist to classify dinosaurs into several distinct baramins (‘created kinds’). Here, I apply the baraminological method called taxon correlation to test for morphological continuity within and between dinosaurian taxa. The results show enough morphological continuity within Dinosauria to consider most dinosaurs genetically related, even by this creationist standard. A continuous morphological spectrum unites the basal members of Saurischia, Theropoda, Sauropodomorpha, Ornithischia, Thyreophora, Marginocephalia, and Ornithopoda with Nodosauridae and Pachycephalosauria and with the basal ornithodirans Silesaurus and Marasuchus. Morphological gaps in the known fossil record separate only seven groups from the rest of Dinosauria. Those groups are Therizinosauroidea + Oviraptorosauria + Paraves [all of which are Maniraptors],  Tazoudasaurus + Eusauropoda, Ankylosauridae, Stegosauria, Neoceratopsia, basal Hadrosauriformes and Hadrosauridae.
Each of these seven groups [one of which is Maniraptors] exhibits within-group morphological continuity, indicating common descent for all the group’s members, even according to this creationist standard.

Maniraptors are not related to actual dinosaurs, such as Compsognathus and Tyrannosaurus  (ie. not related to "non-maniraptor coelurosaurs").
Maniraptors (ie. birds) developed from pterosaurs.

Figure 15.  Summary of results of taxon correlation analyses across Dinosauria. Each boxed group of silhouettes indicates a group for which taxon correlation found within-group morphological continuity; for silhouette groups in different boxes, taxon correlation found morphological discontinuity between the groups. Dotted lines represent uncertainty as to whether morphological discontinuity is truly present (see Discussion). On the cladogram, triangles indicate paraphyletic groups.

Symplesiomorphy

Turning back to the development of pterosaurs to modern birds:

It is believed that dinosaurs and pterosaurs were Ornithodirans.
The dinosaurs went their way on the land and the pterosaurs went their way in the air.

Ornithodira --> Dinosaurs
Ornithodira --> Pterosaurs --> Primitive birds --> Modern birds

The similarities of dinosaurs and primitive birds are symplesiomorphic.
To visualize the idea I am expressing you can think of it this way:
Very early on there was a split of creatures into one line that became land-based dinosaurs and another line that became air-based pterosaurs. Over time, each line developed to adapt to their ecological niche.
The pterosaurs developed through a series of steps to primitive birds (basal paraves) and eventually modern birds.
The dinosaurs on the land developed at the same time on their own line, but eventually died off.
Similarities between dinosaurs and primitive birds are due to their common origin as ornithodirans.
Those similarities are symplesiomorphic.

The ancestor of ducks, geese and swans

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 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.

Analyzing the three major branches

Working with the idea that very early on, three major branches of birds formed (water birds, shorebirds, and land birds), we can look at the landbirds.
As we have seen the chart shows them as green.
http://www.owlpages.info/downloads/A_Phylogenomic_Study_of_Birds_Reveals_Their_Evolutionary_History.pdf
But we can also see that the birds in brown are a subgroup of the landbird major branch.
So we see landbird subgroups in green and others in brown.
Turning to the birds in red, we note that they are in two distinct groups labeled Anseriformes and Galliformes. The Anseriformes are clearly waterbirds and the Galliformes are secondarily weak-flying landbirds.
Also, including the purple group, we see that they are secondarily flightless landbirds. So we can add them to the summary:

landbirds - green, brown, red (Galliformes), purple (Ratites)
shorebirds - gold (Charadriiformes/Charadrii)
waterbirds - blue, gold (Charadriiformes/Lari), red (Anseriformes)

All that is left are the grey and black groups, which as we have seen are still unsettled. So their lineages are unclear, but in time may become clearer. .
Everything we have seen, that is clear, supports the idea of a very early divergence into the three major branches, with subbranches stemming from each major branch.