rdfs:comment
| - Zhou and Hou (2001) distinguished Cathayornis from the similar Sinornis by the former's larger size, a shorter, straighter, finger number I, with a slightly longer claw (ungual), the absence of an antitrochanter, and other features. The type and possibly only species is Cathayornis yandica.[1]
|
abstract
| - Zhou and Hou (2001) distinguished Cathayornis from the similar Sinornis by the former's larger size, a shorter, straighter, finger number I, with a slightly longer claw (ungual), the absence of an antitrochanter, and other features. The type and possibly only species is Cathayornis yandica.[1] Other species – C. aberransis,[2] C. chabuensis[3] and C. caudatus[4] – have been described. However, their validity and/or assignment to the genus Cathayornis has been questioned in subsequent evaluations. Jingmai O'Connor and Gareth Dyke (2010) found that many of the supposedly distinct features of C. aberransis (such as the base of a crest on the skull) had been inaccurately described, casting doubt on the few remaining features separating it from C. yandica, and suggested that further study was needed to determine its validity.[5] Similarly, C. caudatus was so named for its supposedly bony tail lacking a pygostyle, and was further differentiated by its small size. O'Connor and Dyke re-examined the specimen and showed that the specimen is in fact only slightly smaller than the type specimen of C. yandica, and that a normal enantiornithine tail with a pygostyle is clearly visible in one of the fossil slabs, parts of the hip bones having been mistaken for unfused tail vertebrae. O'Connor and Dyke therefore considered C. caudatus a nomen dubium.[5] On the other hand, C. chabuenis is clearly distinct from C. yandica and cannot be assigned to the cathayornithiformes, so it most likely represents a new genus.
|