The Origin and Evolution of Birds

Rating:
Summary: A Much Maligned Books Gets its Due
Review: Alan Feduccia is, as most who follow the debate regarding the origin and evolution of the class Aves know, a tremendously controversial iconoclast who rejects the putative theropod origin of birds. This book, his opus magnum, synthesizes a historical review of avian systematics from origins to the diversification of extant clades, with his own extensive research into field since the 1970s to present a fascinating, albeit contentious view of avian phylogenetics. Other reviews have covered the chapter content of the book, and thus I will rather focus on the content of the text itself. Feduccia assembles a wealth of evidence upon which he bases his conclusion that a theropod origin of birds can be effectively ruled out. Some of these data are still pertinent and needful of further critical examination (e.g., manual and tarsal homologies, dentition) while others are no longer substantiated (e.g., temporal paradox). Nonetheless, there are still important data that must be considered in any discussion of possible sister-group relationships of the class Aves and Feduccia's text, regardless of its merits or demerits, is an excellent place to begin if one wishes to examine arguments against a theropod origin of our feathered friends. Feduccia's treatment of the origin of bird flight succinctly and eloquently dismembers the so-called "ground-up" or cursorial origin of bird flight in favor of the arboreal or "trees-down" model. The treatment of the Mesozoic aviary mainly focuses on elaborating a hypothesized basal dichotomy early in avian evolution between "sauriurine" and ornithurine birds. This hypothesis, though heavily criticized by a number of other researchers (e.g., Chiappe 2002) in the opinion of this reviewer cannot be entirely ruled out. Feduccia reiterates his "big-bang" model of neornithine evolution, which is by far the hypothesis most concordant with the fossil record of crown-clade birds. His argumentation in defense of this hypothesis is compelling and I suggest for those interested further reading within "Trends in Ecology and Evolution" in which Feduccia has further outlined this hypothesis.

Feduccia's treatment of the evolution of neornithine birds is exemplary, and his analysis time and again reveals the weaknesses of cladistic methodology, most especially when adhered to with religious ardor. Feduccia offers another strong restatement of his case for the charadriiform affinities of Phoenicopteridae (flamingos) and the polyphyly of Galloanserae (se also Olson & Feduccia 1980a, b). His analysis of flightlessness in birds, particularly in ratites, illustrates the difficulty in unravelling accurate expression of phylogenetic relationships when one is confronted with rampant neoteny as is the case in Ratitae. He also lays out an accurate review of the causes and known correlates of secondary flight loss in birds. His treatment of the evolution of the "land bird assemblage" is excellent, and incorporates the extensive research Feduccia carried out in the 1970s on the morphology of the bony stapes as a tool in deciphering the phylogenetic relationships of higher avian orders. His conclusions are principally amenable to those of traditional classifications, though in other cases not so (e.g., ciconiiform polyphyly, piciform polyphyly after Olson 1983). The treatment of the systematics of the Passeriformes primarily follows that of Sibley & Ahlquist (1990) and offers a strong basis for oscine and suboscine monophyly. Feduccia demolishes the case for vicariant biogeography by displaying the endless discordant data between present and past distribution especially in passerines, thus fatally undermining the fundamental assertion of the vicariant model.

His 1999 second edition updates the original 1996 text with further consideration of a number of issues mostly pertaining to the origin of birds and the discovery of the now famous "downy dinos" in a new chapter. What is really needed, however, is a decisive revision of the entire text bringing it fully up to date within the context of a third edition.

Overall, Feduccia's tome is a monumental work which needs to be read and considered by all those involved in the debate about the origin and evolution of birds, regardless of their stance in the matter.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent book
Review: The Origin and Evolution of Birds is an excellent ornithological text. The views on the evolution of Aves are very good. However, where this book is most controversial is the discussion of the origin of birds. Feduccia does not subscribe to the generally accepted theory that birds are derived from dinosaurs. Most of the evidence he sites against this hypothesis has been refuted, so take caution in the first two chapters. The rest of the book is an excellent synopsis of bird evolution up to 1996. Though some of his classifications in the tables are conservative, the book discusses the evolution of bird groups very well. The section on the land birds can be considered a classic text. The other bird evolution chapters are very good as well. Feduccia even gives a good case for conservation. The book is all together, excellent.

Rating:
Summary: Ornithologist talks on dinosaurs
Review: This is a very interesting book which is roughly composed of two parts. One concerns the origin of bird & hypothetical development of flight. The other is of earlier birds from Cretaceous onward.
As for the second part, it's enjoyable with interesting & exciting discoveries.
On the contrary, the first part especially against the dinosaur-bird origin theory, it's rather disgusting. (I'm on the side of that theory)
His incisive hostility (maybe personal?) degrades author's personality. Unfortunately his refutations are out of point. The worse is that those reveal his lack of information or knowledge about the recent advanced study with extraordinary high pitch of dinosaurs.
If one tries to step in other's territory, should be fully prepared & equipped with the most updated data instead of superficial & only intuitive ones.
His alternative hypothesis (arboreal ancestral form) is needed much much more investigation & observation of the existent animals and analysis of their mechanism. Otherwise no supporter of dinosaur-bird theory would convert himself to his follower.