PDF (Lo-Res) - Smithsonian Institution Libraries

More documents

Recommendations

Info

328 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY his students (see Witmer, 1991, for references). Supporting characters included aspects of tympanic pneumaticity, cranial circulation, and dental morphology and replacement. The crocodylomorph hypothesis was challenged on a number of counts (Gauthier, 1986) and received an apparent deathblow when Walker (1985) himself apparently recanted. Interestingly, Walker (1990, pers. comm., 1995) essentially recanted his recantation and offered renewed support for avian relationships with crocodylomorphs. 3. Nonarchosauriform archosauromorphs, such as the Triassic form Megalancosaurus, have been suggested to be close to avian ancestry by a number of authors (e.g., Hecht and Tarsitano, 1982; Martin, 1983; Tarsitano, 1985, 1991), most forcefully by Feduccia (1996; see also Feduccia and Wild, 1993). In all formulations, the origin of birds is tightly linked with the origin of flight, which is presumed to have required an initial arboreal phase. Therefore, it is reasoned, because avian ancestors must have been small and quadmpedal, bird-like forms, such as Megalancosaurus (and also Longisquama, Cosesaurus, or Scleromochlus), make good models for avian ancestors (Feduccia and Wild, 1993; Feduccia, 1996). 4. Theropod dinosaurs are certainly the group most commonly cited as being involved in the origin of birds (Witmer, 1991; Chiappe, 1995); however, the specific nature of the relationship, that is, which specific group of theropods is closest to birds, remains controversial. Ostrom (1976) proposed that dromaeosaurid coelurosaurs, such as Deinonychus and Velociraptor, were closest to birds based on a large suite of derived characters, principally from the manus and pelvic limb. This hypothesis received cladistic support from Padian (1982), Gauthier (1986), and Holtz (1994) and is the most commonly encountered version of the theropod hypothesis. Alternate versions differ in which clades are hypothesized to be the sister group of Archaeopteryx and/or other birds (see Witmer, 1991, for additional references): coelophysoid ceratosaurians such as Syntarsus (Raath, 1985), troodontid coelurosaurs (Currie, 1985, Paul, 1988), bullatosaurs (troodontids+ornifhomimosaurs) (Thulbom, 1984), or oviraptorosaurs (Elzanowski, 1995, this volume). Sorting out this confusion will require a comprehensive and up-to-date phylogenetic analysis of Coelurosauria, itself involving a very careful analysis of many characters. 5. Under the broad heading of "the theropod hypothesis" is G.S. Paul's unique formulation (Paul, 1984, 1988). In Paul's view, not only are birds phylogenetically nested within Theropoda, but in fact some forms traditionally interpreted as nonavian theropods are actually secondarily flightless "protobirds." Paul (1988) envisioned a lineage of protobirds beginning in the Jurassic with Archaeopteryx and becoming even more bird-like in the Cretaceous, culminating in true birds (Metomithes, to use Chiappe's (1995) terminology). Along the way, the protobird lineage repeatedly gave off clades of terrestrial, secondarily flightless forms, such as Dromaeosauridae, Oviraptorosauria, Omithomimosauria, and Troodontidae. For support, Paul (1988) cited characters from the skull and pelvic limb and offered additional evidence at the 1996 SAPE conference. This hypothesis has received scant attention in the literature. 6. A related notion is G. Olshevsky's (1994) "Birds Came First" (BCF) theory. This hypothesis suggests that the avian lineage is a tmly ancient one. That is, archosaur phylogeny is characterized by a "central line" of persistently arboreal, quadmpedal "dino-birds" that, beginning in the Permian, continuously gave off branches of terrestrial archosaurs throughout the Mesozoic Era. These secondarily terrestrial clades went on to become the various clades of archosauriforms (e.g., proterosuchians, aetosaurs, sauropodomorph dinosaurs, etc.). Forms like Megalancosaurus and Longisquama are very close to this central line and never left the trees. This central line of arboreal dino-birds became progressively more bird-like through time and thus so did their terrestrial descendants. Theropods are on the central line, and thus, as in Paul's (1988) formulation, the Cretaceous bird-like theropods are deemed secondarily flightless forms. Also like Paul's hypothesis, Olshevsky's ideas have been virtually ignored in the literature. The Roundtable Discussion Six major topics were presented at the roundtable for discussion. The topics were chosen to stimulate debate, to examine critical issues, and, it was hoped, to reach agreement on at least some points. Again, each topic is briefly outlined below to set up the ensuing discussion. 1. THE CENTRAL ROLE OF Archaeopteryx IN THE DEBATE The history of the debate on avian origins, almost since its inception, has been focused on Archaeopteryx. In fact, Archaeopteryx has been the key player in not just the origin of birds but in virtually all ancillary debates: the origin of flight (Rayner, 1988; Feduccia, 1993, 1996; Herzog, 1993), the origin of feathers (Parkes, 1966; Dyck, 1985), the origin of endothermy (Ruben, 1995), and others. An entire conference and the resulting volume (Hecht et al., 1985) were devoted to Archaeopteryx and its impact on these questions. Moreover, Archaeopteryx has importance beyond its technical significance as a symbol of organic evolution. As Ostrom stated during the roundtable, "the Berlin specimen [of Archaeopteryx] is the most valuable and most famous specimen of anything." Given this historically central role, the discussion topic posed to the roundtable participants was whether or not this role is deserved. The first sentence of Ostrom's (1976:91) paper states, "The question of the origin of birds can be equated with the origin of Archaeopteryx,'''' which clearly articulates the feeling that if we can understand Archaeopteryx, we will automatically understand the origin of birds (and the origin of flight, etc.). The avian status of Archaeopteryx is an unstated assumption of most analyses. The worry is that if all argumentation is founded on this assumption and this assumption is
NUMBER 89 proved questionable or even invalid, then an enormous amount of scientific discourse will have to be called into question. The stakes are quite high. Interestingly, the history of the debate (Witmer, 1991) shows a persistent minority arguing that Archaeopteryx may not be part of the true avian clade but rather is a feathered dinosaur (e.g., Lowe, 1944; Thulbom, 1975, 1984; Thulborn and Hamley, 1982; Barsbold, 1983; Kurzanov, 1985). The intent of raising the issue about the central role of Archaeopteryx was to nurture healthy skepticism and to offer the opportunity to reinforce (or dispute) its avian status. The discussion opened with G.S. Paul taking up the issue he presented in his poster and abstract, namely, that Archaeopteryx is skeletally a small dromaeosaurid and perhaps not a tme bird at all. Paul began by doubting that Archaeopteryx had the features of avian craniofacial kinesis suggested by Elzanowski and Wellnhofer (1996), citing the presence of a complete postorbital bar and a strong maxillary-lacrimal contact, both of which would prevent intracranial mobility; furthermore, Paul questioned their interpretation of bird-like features in the pterygoid. "Years ago when I saw the Eichstatt skull," Paul continued, "I thought that I saw an essentially theropod skull, and I believe that with the newest skull this is, in most ways, tmer than I ever thought.... I don't really see very much evidence of anything avian in the skull of Archaeopteryx. Except, as Elzanowski and Wellnhofer [1996] have pointed out, apparently the palatine is fairly avian [in being] triradiate and having a small palatine hook [i.e., the vomeropterygoid or choanal process]. But even there, some theropods get very close to that. For example, dromaeosaurs have virtually no fourth process, the maxillary process of the palatine. Postcranially, again, Archaeopteryx is very, very similar to dromaeosaurid theropods. The main features that are avian are in the forelimb and, as pointed out today [in Zhou and Martin's talk], particularly in the wrist and hand—and those are features associated with flight. I hadn't really realized until very recently how extremely similar Archaeopteryx is to dromaeosaurs in very detailed characters." To illustrate this point, Paul distributed handouts derived from his poster and led the participants through the intricacies of a single character, the twisting of the paroccipital process, which is very similar in Archaeopteryx and dromaeosaurids like Velociraptor and is unlike other archosaurs, with perhaps the exception of Mononykus. "This is what we're getting down to now," Paul continued. "We're getting down to little tiny details shared by dromaeosaurs and Archaeopteryx" L.M. Witmer suggested that Paul's comments primarily provided "further evidence, I think many of us would say, supporting that birds are related to small theropods, in particular dromaeosaurs. [But the issue is] not necessarily what are the features that Archaeopteryx shares with dromaeosaurs, but what are the features that Archaeopteryx shares with other birds?" A. Elzanowski responded that Archaeopteryx has "very well-defined avian characters in the skull," such as those associated with the palatine and pterygoid. He went on to enumerate features in Archaeopteryx that are unique and that set it 329 apart from dromaeosaurids. For example, the pterygoid of Archaeopteryx is "so different from a typical theropod or dromaeosaurid pterygoid that we [he and Wellnhofer] had problems, I admit, in identifying what is the left and what is the right element. No one would have any problems of this sort with [theropods given] John Ostrom's excellent documentation of dromaeosaurids.... The [pterygoid] wing that Greg [Paul] wants to see as an ectopterygoid process is certainly not an ectopterygoid process. ...The quadrate part of the pterygoid is radically, dramatically different from the dromaeosaurids— The skull is in many characters dramatically different from any known theropod.... The nasal cavity has very peculiar structures that are very difficult to compare with anything known so far. The pterygoid has an absolutely peculiar longitudinal division which is very hard to interpret and to compare with anything else." Elzanowski argued that molecular systematics provides insight into the importance of weighing characters, such that "characters like bending of the paroccipital process are simply not comparable, and can never outweigh a radical, dramatic difference in, for example, the palatine bone, which is definitely avian in Archaeopteryx and is clearly theropodan in dromaeosaurids." Furthermore, he suggested that the presence of an avian palatine reflects significant transformation of the skull and evolution of an avian kinetic apparatus. J.H. Ostrom argued passionately for the significance of the specimens of Archaeopteryx, yet he also noted that "the magnitude of Earth's history is enormous. With a handful of specimens, you think you're going to draw conclusions about who evolved from whom?" In a similar vein, K.C Parkes offered, "With Archaeopteryx we have a snapshot—a snapshot of a brief moment in time A hell of a lot of things must have happened between the time of our still arguable ancestral form [and Archaeopteryx}. ...We have absolutely no evidence of what happened up to the point of that snapshot in time, which means we have to take Archaeopteryx for what we have.... The argument back and forth—is it a bird or not—seems to me almost fruitless because we don't know what came [even] half a million years before Archaeopteryx. So that to some extent, all of the conjecture as to where Archaeopteryx came from is going to be very fruitless until we can find something that's a lot closer to Archaeopteryx in time than anything we have now." The role of Archaeopteryx continued to be debated by the participants but as part of other discussion topics, which appear in their appropriate contexts. 2. THE ROLE OF THE CRETACEOUS AVIAN RADIATIONS IN THE DEBATE Certainly part of the reason Archaeopteryx has been so important is that for very many years it had been almost the only relevant Mesozoic bird {Hesperomis was too aberrant and Ichthyornis was too "modem" to be pertinent). With the numerous new discoveries of Early Cretaceous (perhaps even Late Jurassic) birds in Spain and China, the database has changed dramat-
Page 1 and 2:
»'' § "S^ iFjwtM . •- .m-i Avia
Page 3:
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOB
Page 6 and 7:
ABSTRACT Olson, Storrs L., editor.
Page 8 and 9:
EARLY WATERFOWL (ANSERIFORMES) AND
Page 10 and 11:
v m SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PA
Page 12 and 13:
localities, all of them situated in
Page 14 and 15:
Bone of Sus scrofa Linnaeus, introd
Page 16 and 17:
duboisi are larger than the largest
Page 18 and 19:
8 iver (1897) but afterward were tr
Page 20 and 21:
10 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PAL
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
16 Cor. Hum. Uln. Cpm. Fern. Tbt. T
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
20 sometatarsus are proportionally
Page 32 and 33:
22 Cor. Hum. Uln. Cpm. Fern. Tbt. T
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
26 Cor. Hum. Cpm. Fern. Tbt. Tmt. P
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
34 ability in such a way that it ca
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
42 2km SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO
Page 54 and 55:
Site 13 Research Base ENTRANCE Lowe
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
48 the last has unusually slender w
Page 60 and 61:
50 Si 5 15i 10- 5- 20 J 15 I 10 f 5
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 77 and 78:
Comparison of Paleoecological Patte
Page 79 and 80:
NUMBER 89 69 TABLE 1.—Vertebrate
Page 81 and 82:
NUMBER 89 71 Mallorca, probably in
Page 83:
NUMBER 89 Alcover, J.A. 1989. Les a
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 95 and 96:
The History of the Chatham Islands'
Page 97 and 98:
NUMBER 89 87 Species Common Name Pe
Page 99 and 100:
NUMBER 89 89 NZA 797,1930,1934 Unco
Page 101 and 102:
NUMBER 89 91 anoramphus spp.), Chat
Page 103 and 104:
NUMBER 89 93 TABLE 2.—Land snails
Page 105 and 106:
NUMBER 89 95 counterparts, with som
Page 107 and 108:
NUMBER 89 population, if such exist
Page 109 and 110:
NUMBER 89 99 FIGURE 11.—Skulls of
Page 111 and 112:
NUMBER 89 101 FIGURE 13.—Lower ma
Page 113 and 114:
NUMBER 89 the Chatham Island Pied O
Page 115 and 116:
NUMBER 89 Locality 9, Western Maung
Page 117 and 118:
NUMBER 89 107 yellowish sand (site
Page 119:
NUMBER 89 109 ogy. Notornis, supple
Page 122 and 123:
112 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PA
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 135 and 136:
The Middle Pleistocene Avifauna of
Page 137:
NUMBER 89 Accordi, B. 1962. La grot
Page 140 and 141:
130 FIGURE 1.—Map showing locatio
Page 142 and 143:
132 Cranium Mandibula Scapula Clavi
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 149 and 150:
Seabirds and Late Pleistocene Marin
Page 151 and 152:
NUMBER 89 141 METHODS Only strictly
Page 153 and 154:
NUMBER 89 143 FIGURE 2.—Area of s
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
NUMBER 89 151 FIGURE 10.—Area of
Page 163 and 164:
NUMBER 89 153 FIGURE 12.—Area of
Page 165 and 166:
NUMBER 89 155 the period studied. T
Page 167:
NUMBER 89 157 Walker, C.A., G.M. Wr
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
164 Vl 620 M 570 £ 520 S 470f •
Page 176 and 177:
166 birds, such as the two species
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
170 cional Autonoma de Mexico, for
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
174 ated with this specimen, see Mi
Page 187 and 188:
The Fossil Record of Condors (Cicon
Page 189 and 190:
NUMBER 89 179 FIGURE 2.—Geographi
Page 191 and 192:
NUMBER 89 181 FIGURE 5.—Vulturida
Page 193 and 194:
NUMBER 89 183 FIGURE 7.—Referred
Page 195 and 196:
Two New Fossil Eagles from the Late
Page 197 and 198:
NUMBER 89 187 TABLE 1.—Measuremen
Page 199 and 200:
NUMBER 89 189 carpal trochlea relat
Page 201 and 202:
NUMBER 89 191 FIGURE 4.—Holotypic
Page 203 and 204:
NUMBER 89 193 We compared the parat
Page 205 and 206:
NUMBER 89 195 FIGURE 6.—Distribut
Page 207 and 208:
NUMBER 89 197 the Florida State Mus
Page 209 and 210:
A New Genus of Dwarf Megapode (Gall
Page 211 and 212:
NUMBER 89 201 lis hypotarsi along t
Page 213 and 214:
NUMBER 89 203 The fossil is larger
Page 215 and 216:
NUMBER 89 205 Clark, George A., Jr.
Page 217 and 218:
A New Genus and Species of the Fami
Page 219 and 220:
NUMBER 89 209 son with other known
Page 221 and 222:
NUMBER 89 211 FIGURE 1.—Argornis
Page 223 and 224:
NUMBER 89 213 AM AL AM AL AM AL AM
Page 225 and 226:
NUMBER 89 215 caput humeri perpendi
Page 227 and 228:
Selmes absurdipes, New Genus, New S
Page 229 and 230:
NUMBER 89 219 FIGURE 2.—Selmes ab
Page 231 and 232:
NUMBER 89 221 Costae: Deformed frag
Page 233 and 234:
A Fossil Screamer (Anseriformes: An
Page 235 and 236:
NUMBER 89 FIGURE 3.—Chaunoides an
Page 237 and 238:
NUMBER 89 227 B C D FIGURE 6.—The
Page 239 and 240:
NUMBER 89 229 FIGURE 9.—Right tib
Page 241 and 242:
The Anseriform Relationships of Ana
Page 243 and 244:
NUMBER 89 233 Subfamily ANATALAVINA
Page 245 and 246:
NUMBER 89 235 mal was found under t
Page 247 and 248:
NUMBER 89 237 tion, with retroartic
Page 249 and 250:
NUMBER 89 FIGURE 7.—Sternum and p
Page 251 and 252:
NUMBER 89 241 der. The bone is very
Page 253:
NUMBER 89 243 Eocene records of the
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 263 and 264:
Presbyornis isoni and Other Late Pa
Page 265 and 266:
NUMBER 89 255 FIGURE 1.—Referred
Page 267 and 268:
NUMBER 89 257 vical vertebrae of th
Page 269:
NUMBER 89 259 (Olson and Parris, 19
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
274 America. Science, 214(4526): 12
Page 286 and 287:
276 concerning the amphicoelous str
Page 288 and 289: 278 ment of the radius that are con
Page 290 and 291: 280 The left coracoid is represente
Page 292 and 293: 282 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PA
Page 294 and 295: 284 Kurochkin, E.N. 1982. [New Orde
Page 298 and 299: 288 Palaeontological Institute. [Sp
Page 300 and 301: 290 1991). In this paper we use a "
Page 305 and 306: Implantation and Replacement of Bir
Page 307 and 308: NUMBER 89 297 saurs (Figure 1E-G).
Page 309 and 310: NUMBER 89 299 would seem unlikely a
Page 311 and 312: Humeral Rotation and Wrist Supinati
Page 313 and 314: NUMBER 89 303 apparent. It is now c
Page 315 and 316: NUMBER 89 305 FIGURE 3.—Dorsal vi
Page 317 and 318: NUMBER 89 307 FIGURE 4.—Wing of t
Page 319: NUMBER 89 309 Jura-Museums, Eichsta
Page 335: Early Evolution of Birds: Roundtabl
Page 348 and 349: 338 evolved independently twice." M
Page 356: 1 i'~L ,i "^ 1 •vw* HBB!/'' . m
show all

PDF (Lo-Res) - Smithsonian Institution Libraries

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?