Talk:Neoaves

Problematic

First, adding a cladogram adds more authority o this article than is warranted. Second, using Hackett et al (2008) is bad, because it is long superceded and (in parts) robustly refuted. Third, the recent studies (2001 and later) suggest that there is a "hard polytomy" at the base of at least the "higher landbirds". Fourth, what's with the subtaxa - this is complete crap. The only main subgroup of Neoaves that is formally named are the Aequornithes, and apart from that you also have Cypselomorphae/Strisores and Mirandornithes (which may be part of Aequornithes), but that's about it at present.

(From my own analyses, I suspect the "higher landbirds" are a clade, too. But not all neoavian landbirds belong there. Doves, cuckoos+allies, Strisores do not AFACITATM.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Independent research does not adhere to WP rules. Thanks! 66.57.57.178 (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is obviously in need of work. I don't have access to the relevant sources, but someone who does should make more recent/better supported research take center stage, preferably without editorializing about how likely/unlikely certain scenarios are beyond quoting papers. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Neoaves

Hi. Jetz et al. is just based on the nodes of Ericson et al. (2006) and Hackett et al. (2008). They just assumed that all genera were monophyletic.

• Ericson et al. (2006) Diversification of Neoaves: Integration of molecular sequence data and fossils. Biol Lett 2(4):543-7.
• Hackett et al. (2008) A phylogenomic study of birds reveals their evolutionary history. Science 320(5884):1763-8.--

Ornithodiez (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

And so? Why would this mean that we couldn't use Jetz et al? Do you have any published sources supporting your claim that the paper by Jetz et al. is not a generally accepted classification?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

As i said, they just used the nodes of Ericson et al. (2006) and Hackett et al. (2008), and they assumed that all genera were monophyletic. I can give the paper if you don't understand this. Also, i'm a biologist, so i know what i'm talking about.--Ornithodiez (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

We understand what you said. You apparently don't understand us. If all Jetz et al. did was copy others, as you say, then we should delete Jetz et al. if anyone. Also, can you demonstrate that Hackett agrees with Ericson, or with Jetz's merger of the two? You've given no reason not to include both.

Sorry, but you're going to need to convince us, not just stomp your foot and demand we obey. You're also running up against WP:3RR, which can get you blocked. — kwami (talk) 05:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

First, you are a neophyte that are talking to a professional in this subject. And finally, i have no problem in provide you the paper of Jetz et al., so you can finally read that methodology.--Ornithodiez (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

A professional ought to be able to explain better than that. Why does the fact that a classification reuses older classifications mean that it should be removed from this article? And could you provide some published articles that critique Jetz et al, I am afraid that even if you are a professional that doesn't mean that we can exclude that source just because you don't like it. You have to show us that it doesn't currently have validity in the biological community.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Supraordinal clades and names

I've being looking at the supraordinal groups and which have Wikipedia articles and which are used in the taxonomy template hierarchy.

• Magnificent seven clades with articles and placed in taxonomy heirarchy: Telluraves, Aequornithes, Eurypygimorphae, Otidimorphae, Strisores, Columbimorphae, and Mirandornithes.
  • One question is the origin of of the name Eurypygimorphae (where is this from?). I think it should be Phaethontimorphae.
  • Should we use Strisores or Caprimulgimorphae for article. Chen et al (2019) suggested using them for crown and total group, respectively, but had no taxa outside the crown group in their analysis. I think keeping the article at Strisores is fine, although there might be a case for consistent use the -morphae names.
  • Should these strongly supported groups always be displayed in the taxobox?
• Groupings of the magnificent seven clades and orphan orders:
  • Passerea: not universally supported (e.g. Prum et al 2015, Kulh et al 2020)) but widely used (e.g, the Braun &. Kimball (2021) hard polytomy in Passerea configuration). It should have an article, but should it be included in the taxonomy template hierarchy?
  • Phaethoquornithes: well supported. For a long time this article was at Ardeae, which doesn't seem to be used outside Wikipedia and TiF. It was recently moved.
  • Gruimorphae: some support, but I'm not sure of the name (used by TiF). It's also used in the taxonomy template hierarchy for Charadriformes and Gruiformes, which I don't think it should be. Cursorimorphae redirects here.
  • Gruae and Otidae: limited support and uncertain origin of names (used by TiF).
  • Aequorlitornithes, Columbaves, Columbea, Inopinaves. Groupings with some support. I think there is sufficient interest to have articles, but they shouldn't be part of the taxonomy hierarchy (which they are not).
  • Metaves. Article with some historical interest.
• Groupings within magnificent seven clades
  • Within Aequornithes:
    • Austrodyptornithes . Should we use Procellariimorphae?
    • Feraequornithes. Redirects to Aequornithes, but should it be used in taxonomy template hierarchy?
    • Pelecanimorphae. An article, but not used in taxonomy template hierarchy. I think it should be and that we should use it with Procellariimorphae for consistency.
  • Within Telluraves:
    • The taxonomy templates hierarchy uses Accipitrimorphae, Coraciimorphae and Australaves, which are well-supported. Afroaves has an article, but is not used in the template heirarchy.
    • Within Coraciimorphae the template system uses Cavitaves, Eucavitaves, Picocoraciae and Picodynastornithes. These are all well-supported and I think they are valid names.
    • Within Australaves there are Eufalconimorphae and Psittacopasserae. There is a case for moving Psittacopasserae to Psittacopasseres based on a grammatical emendment by Mayr (2022).

Any thoughts? —  Jts1882 | talk  09:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)