Untitled edit
This is pretty dreadful: poor (almost absent and/or meaningless) definitions, lack of proper citations, appalling English.
Look at this:
"The Cuculiformes, Piciformes, Coraciiformes (including hornbills) and Trogoniformes seem to be very close to the Passeriformes on the other hand (Johansson & Ericson 2003), and one of these almost certainly is—among the living birds—the sister taxon of the Passeriformes."
1. One of these?!! WHICH ONE??!
2. The phrase 'on the other hand' is in the wrong place, if it even means anything.
By whose/what standard is the term "near passerine" defined? Is there any official definition?
For example, how many of these orders have the characteristic foot shape of the passerines - three toes forward, one back? And how much variation is there in the relative lengths of the toes? -- Smjg 16:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know if there is an official definition, but it's commonly used to describe land birds other than the raptors, ie those that could be mistaken for passerines jimfbleak 17:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- I'd have too look whether there ever was an official definition. The passeriform toe arrangement is a plesiomorphy in Aves (it is the foot and lower leg bones that are peculiar), but the "near passerine" assemblage does have a wide range of foot morphologies; I think everything except didactyly that is found in modern birds can be found among them.
- FWIW, molecular analyses do support, albeit tentatively, a "passeromorph" clade. But this page needs to be worked over; I'll look into the publications and do it in the next months. Dysmorodrepanis 08:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)