Category talk:Birds by classification

Basal Categories
The categories for basal birds of vrious groups don't seem particularly useful, as most are redundant with categories at the top level of Birds by classification. For example, Category:Basal Aves contains Archaeopterygidae, which is also contained in Category:Archaeopterygiforms. What's the resoning behind these groups?Dinoguy2 19:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Archie is not really a good example as it is definitely assignable to a family and possibly order. But there is no unequivocally accepted comprehensive higher-level taxonomy for non-Neornithine birds, not even one accepted by a majority of scientists (though there are some accepted taxa like Enantiornithes and Archaeopterygidae)! E.g. Chaoyangia cannot be unequivocally placed into the taxonomy except saying that it is a bird and it was more advanced than Archie. Thus, it would go into one of the "Basic" categories (Pygostylia probably). They are merely useful placeholders pending an accepted taxonomy of early birds, which may be upcoming soon or just as likely take decades.
 * Or take Jixiangornis - I find the "Jeholornithidae" of Zhou & Zhang, at least including Jixiangornis, a bit problematic to put it mildly. But if one restricts the order to Shenzhouraptor/Jeholornis and maybe Hulsanpes, what is Jixiangornis? An ornithurine less advanced than e.g. the Enantiornithes, that's all that can be said. Dysmorodrepanis 22:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)