Cathayornis

''Cathayornis'' is a genus of enantiornithean birds from the Jiufotang Formation of Liaoning, People's Republic of China. It is known definitively from only one species, ''Cathayornis yandica'', one of the first Enantiornithes found in China. Several additional species were once incorrectly classified as ''Cathayornis'', and have since been reclassified or regarded as ''nomina dubia''.

Description

''Cathayornis yandica'' was a small enantiornithean with a slightly elongated, toothy snout and perching feet. Like most other Enantiornithes, it had large claws on the first two fingers that supported the wing. According to most recent studies, only one specimen can be definitively assigned to this species, a fossil catalogued as number IVPP V9769 and currently housed in the collections of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing. ''Cathayornis'' can be told apart from similar Enantiornithes (especially ''Sinornis'', ''Eocathayornis'', and ''Houornis'') by its larger size, a shorter and straighter first finger with a slightly longer claw, and other anatomical details.Zhou, Zhonghe, Hou and Lianhai. (2001). "The Discovery and Study of Mesozoic Birds in China." In Chiappe, L. and Witmer, L. (eds.), ''Mesozoic Birds: Above the Heads of Dinosaurs''. 2001: University of California Press. Two additional but very fragmentary specimens, IVPP V9936 and V10896, have been referred to ''C. yandica'' in the past, but cannot be directly compared with the type specimen because they do not preserve any of the same key parts of the skeleton.

Classification and species

Paul Sereno ''et al.'', in 2002, considered ''Cathayornis'' a junior synonym of ''Sinornis''. They interpreted the anatomies of the two as very similar and sharing key autapomorphies of the pygostyle.Sereno, Rao and Li, (2002). "''Sinornis santensis'' (Aves: Enantiornithes) from the Early Cretaceous of Northeastern China." Pp 184-208. in Chiappe and Witmer (eds.), ''Mesozoic Birds – Above the Heads of Dinosaurs''. Berkeley: University of California Press The first thorough review of ''Sinornis'' and ''Cathayornis'' was published by Jingmai O'Connor and Gareth Dyke in 2010. O'Connor and Dyke concluded that despite the earlier opinion of Sereno and colleagues, the two birds were not synonyms and in fact differ in several clear ways, including different proportions in the wing claws and digits, differences in the pelvis, and size of the pygostyle.O'Connor, J. and Dyke, G. (2010). "A reassessment of ''Sinornis santensis'' and ''Cathayornis yandica'' (Aves: Enantiornithes)." ''Records of the Australian Museum'', 62: 7-20.

Several other species – ''Cathayornis aberransis'',Hou, Zhou, Zhang and Gu, (2002). ''Mesozoic birds from western Liaoning in China''. . 120 pp. ''Cathayornis chabuensis''Li, J., Li, Z., Zhang, Y., Zhou, Z., Bai, Z., Zhang, L. and Ba, T. (2008). "A new species of ''Cathayornis'' from the Lower Cretaceous of Inner Mongolia, China and its stratigraphic significance." ''Acta Geologica Sinica'', 82(6): 1115-1123. and ''Cathayornis caudatus''Hou Lianhai, 1997. ''Mesozoic Birds of China''. Phoenix Valley Bird Park, Lugu Hsiang, Taiwan. 221 pp. – had been classified as ''Cathayornis'' in the past. 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. 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 enantiornithean 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. They considered ''C. chabuenis'', from the Jingchuan Formation of Inner Mongolia, to be clearly distinct from ''C. yandica'' and most likely a representative of a new genus. In a 2015 re-evaluation of supposed "cathayornithids", Wang and Liu determined that ''C. caudatus'' could be differentiated from ''Cathayornis'' and placed it in the new genus ''Houornis''. On the other hand, they considered ''C. chabuensis'' a ''nomen dubium''.

Other species of similar birds from the Jiufotang Formation have been regarded as synonymous with ''C. yandica'' by some researchers, including ''Largirostrornis sexdentoris'' and ''Cuspirostrisornis houi'',Zhou Z. and Wang Y. (2010). "Vertebrate diversity of the Jehol Biota as compared with other lagerstätten." ''Science China: Earth Sciences'', 53(12): 1894–1907.

though this has yet to be supported by rigorous study. O'Connor and colleagues noted that ''Longchengornis sanyanensis'', also synonymized with ''C. yandica'' by some authors, seems to show distinct anatomy not shared with at least that species of ''Cathayornis''.

References

{{Taxonbar, from=Q3700185

Bird genera
Early Cretaceous birds of Asia
Euenantiornitheans
Fossil taxa described in 1992
Jiufotang fauna