In recent years, avian systematics has been characterized by a diminished reliance on morphological cladistics of modern taxa, intensive palaeornithogical research stimulated by new discoveries and an inundation by analyses based on DNA sequences. Unfortunately, in contrast to significant insights into basal origins, the broad picture of neornithine phylogeny remains largely unresolved. Morphological studies have emphasized characters of use in palaeontological contexts. Molecular studies, following disillusionment with the pioneering, but non-cladistic, work of Sibley and Ahlquist, have differed markedly from each other and from morphological works in both methods and findings. Consequently, at the turn of the millennium, points of robust agreement among schools concerning higher-order neornithine phylogeny have been limited to the two basalmost and several mid-level, primary groups. This paper describes a phylogenetic (cladistic) analysis of 150 taxa of Neornithes, including exemplars from all non-passeriform families, and subordinal representatives of Passeriformes. Thirty-five outgroup taxa encompassing Crocodylia, predominately theropod Dinosauria, and selected Mesozoic birds were used to root the trees. Based on study of specimens and the literature, 2954 morphological characters were defined; these characters have been described in a companion work, approximately one-third of which were multistate (i.e. comprised at least three states), and states within more than one-half of these multistate characters were ordered for analysis. Complete heuristic searches using 10 000 random-addition replicates recovered a total solution set of 97 well-resolved, most-parsimonious trees (MPTs). The set of MPTs was confirmed by an expanded heuristic search based on 10 000 random-addition replicates and a full ratchet-augmented exploration to ascertain global optima. A strict consensus tree of MPTs included only six trichotomies, i.e. nodes differing topologically among MPTs. Bootstrapping (based on 10 000 replicates) percentages and ratchet-minimized support (Bremer) indices indicated most nodes to be robust. Several fossil Neornithes (e.g. Dinornithiformes, Aepyornithiformes) were placed within the ingroup a posteriori either through unconstrained, heursitic searches based on the complete matrix augmented by these taxa separately or using backbone-constraints. Analysis confirmed the topology among outgroup Theropoda and achieved robust resolution at virtually all levels of the Neornithes. Findings included monophyly of the palaeognathous birds, comprising the sister taxa Tinamiformes and ratites, respectively, and the Anseriformes and Galliformes as monophyletic sister-groups, together forming the sister-group to other Neornithes exclusive of the Palaeognathae (Neoaves). Noteworthy inferences include: (i) the sister-group to remaining Neoaves comprises a diversity of marine and wading birds; (ii) Podicipedidae are the sister-group of Gaviidae, and not closely related to the Phoenicopteridae, as recently suggested; (iii) the traditional Pelecaniformes, including the shoebill (Balaeniceps rex) as sister-taxon to other members, are monophyletic; (iv) traditional Ciconiiformes are monophyletic; (v) Strigiformes and Falconiformes are sister-groups; (vi) Cathartidae is the sister-group of the remaining Falconiformes; (vii) Ralliformes (Rallidae and Heliornithidae) are the sister-group to the monophyletic Charadriiformes, with the traditionally composed Gruiformes and Turniciformes (Turnicidae and Mesitornithidae) sequentially paraphyletic to the entire foregoing clade; (viii) Opisthocomus hoazin is the sister-taxon to the Cuculiformes (including the Musophagidae); (ix) traditional Caprimulgiformes are monophyletic and the sister-group of the Apodiformes; (x) Trogoniformes are the sister-group of Coliiformes; (xi) Coraciiformes, Piciformes and Passeriformes are mutually monophyletic and closely related; and (xii) the Galbulae are retained within the Piciformes. Unresolved portions of the Neornithes (nodes having more than one most-parsimonious solution) comprised three parts of the tree: (a) several interfamilial nodes within the Charadriiformes; (b) a trichotomy comprising the (i) Psittaciformes, (ii) Columbiformes and (iii) Trogonomorphae (Trogoniformes, Coliiformes) + Passerimorphae (Coraciiformes, Piciformes, Passeriformes); and (c) a trichotomy comprising the Coraciiformes, Piciformes and Passeriformes. The remaining polytomies were among outgroups, although several of the highest-order nodes were only marginally supported; however, the majority of nodes were resolved and met or surpassed conventional standards of support. Quantitative comparisons with alternative hypotheses, examination of highly supportive and diagnostic characters for higher taxa, correspondences with prior studies, complementarity and philosophical differences with palaeontological phylogenetics, promises and challenges of palaeogeography and calibration of evolutionary rates of birds, and classes of promising evidence and future directions of study are reviewed. Homology, as applied to avian examples of apparent homologues, is considered in terms of recent theory, and a revised annotated classification of higher-order taxa of Neornithes and other closely related Theropoda is proposed. © 2007 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2007, 149, 1–95.

中文翻译：

---

基于比较解剖学的现代鸟类（兽脚亚目，鸟纲：新鸟亚目）的高阶系统发育。二.分析讨论


近年来，鸟类系统学的特点是对现代类群形态分支学的依赖减少，新发现刺激了古鸟类研究的深入，以及基于 DNA 序列的分析的泛滥。不幸的是，与对基础起源的重要见解相反，新鸟氨酸系统发育的广泛图景在很大程度上仍未得到解决。形态学研究强调了古生物学背景下的使用特征。在对西布利和阿尔奎斯特开创性但非分支论的工作失望之后，分子研究在方法和发现上彼此之间以及与形态学工作都有显着的不同。因此，在世纪之交，学派之间关于高阶新鸟系统发育的强有力一致点仅限于两个最基础的群体和几个中层的初级群体。本文描述了对 150 个新鸟类的系统发育（分支）分析，包括所有非雀形科的范例以及雀形目的亚目代表。包括鳄鱼纲、主要是兽脚亚目恐龙和选定的中生代鸟类在内的 35 个外类群被用来为树木扎根。通过对标本和文献的研究，确定了2954个形态特征；这些角色已在配套著作中进行了描述，其中大约三分之一是多状态的（即至少包含三个状态），并且这些多状态角色中超过一半的状态已被订购进行分析。使用 10 000 个随机添加重复的完整启发式搜索恢复了 97 个解析良好、最简约的树 (MPT) 的总解决方案集。 MPT 集通过基于 10 000 个随机添加重复的扩展启发式搜索和完整的棘轮增强探索来确认，以确定全局最优值。 MPT 的严格共识树仅包括六种三分法，即 MPT 之间拓扑不同的节点。自举（基于 10 000 次重复）百分比和棘轮最小化支持 (Bremer) 指数表明大多数节点都是稳健的。一些新鸟化石（例如恐龙形目、鸟形目）通过基于这些类群单独增强的完整矩阵的无约束、启发式搜索或使用骨干约束，被后验地置于内群内。分析证实了兽脚类外群的拓扑结构，并在新鸟类的几乎所有级别都实现了可靠的分辨率。研究结果包括古颌类鸟类的单系性，分别包括姐妹类群黄形目和平胸类，以及雁形目和鸡形目作为单系姐妹群，共同构成了除古颌类之外的其他新鸟类的姐妹群。 值得注意的推论包括：（i）其余新鸟的姐妹群由多种海洋鸟类和涉水鸟类组成； (ii) Podicipedidae 是 Gaviidae 的姐妹群，正如最近提出的那样，与 Phoenicopteridae 没有密切关系； (iii) 传统的鹈鹕目，包括鲸头鹳（Balaeniceps rex），作为其他成员的姐妹分类单元，是单系的； (iv) 传统的鹳形目是单系的； (v) 鹞形目和隼形目是姊妹类群； (vi) 隼形目 (Cathartidae) 是其余隼形目 (Falconiformes) 的姐妹群； (vii) 鸡形目（Rallidae 和 Heliornithidae）是单系 Charadriiformes 的姊妹类群，传统上组成的 Gruiformes 和 Turniciformes（Turnicidae 和 Mesitornithidae）依次并系于整个前述分支； (viii) Opisthocomus hoazin 是 Cuculiformes 的姊妹分类群（包括 Musophagidae）； (ix) 传统的 Caprimulgiformes 是单系的，是 Apodiformes 的姐妹群； (x) Trogoniformes 是 Coliiformes 的姐妹群； (xi) Coraciiformes、Piciformes 和 Passeriformes 是相互单系且密切相关的； (xii) Galbulae 保留在 Piciformes 内。新鸟类的未解决部分（具有多个最简约解决方案的节点）由树的三个部分组成：（a）Charadriiformes 内的几个家族间节点； (b) 三分法，包括 (i) 鹦鹉形目、(ii) 鸽形目和 (iii) 雀形目 (Trogoniformes、Coliiformes) + 雀形目 (Coraciiformes、Piciformes、Passeriformes)； (c) 包括 Coraciiformes、Piciformes 和 Passeriformes 的三分法。 其余的多分体属于外群体，尽管几个最高阶节点仅得到少量支持；然而，大多数节点都得到了解决，并达到或超过了传统的支持标准。与替代假设的定量比较，对更高分类单元的高度支持和诊断特征的检查，与先前研究的对应性，与古生物学系统发育学的互补性和哲学差异，古地理学的希望和挑战以及鸟类进化速率的校准，以及有希望的证据和未来的类别审查研究方向。同源性，应用于明显同源的鸟类例子，根据最近的理论进行了考虑，并提出了新鸟类和其他密切相关的兽脚亚目的高阶类群的修订注释分类。 © 2007 伦敦林奈学会，《林奈学会动物学杂志》，2007 年，149，1–95。