Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Jul 30;19(7):e0278737. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278737

A new Paleogene fossil and a new dataset for waterfowl (Aves: Anseriformes) clarify phylogeny, ecological evolution, and avian evolution at the K-Pg Boundary

Grace Musser 1,2,*, Julia A Clarke 2
Editor: Thierry Smith3
PMCID: PMC11288464  PMID: 39078833

Abstract

Despite making up one of the most ecologically diverse groups of living birds, comprising soaring, diving and giant flightless taxa, the evolutionary relationships and ecological evolution of Anseriformes (waterfowl) remain unresolved. Although Anseriformes have a comparatively rich, global Cretaceous and Paleogene fossil record, morphological datasets for this group that include extinct taxa report conflicting relationships for all known extinct taxa. Correct placement of extinct taxa is necessary to understand whether ancestral anseriform feeding ecology was more terrestrial or one of a set of diverse aquatic ecologies and to better understand avian evolution around the K-T boundary. Here, we present a new morphological dataset for Anseriformes that includes more extant and extinct taxa than any previous anseriform-focused dataset and describe a new anseriform species from the early Eocene Green River Formation of North America. The new taxon has a mediolaterally narrow bill which is rarely found in previously described anseriform fossils. The matrix created to assess the placement of this taxon comprises 41 taxa and 719 discrete morphological characters describing skeletal morphology, musculature, syringeal morphology, ecology, and behavior. We additionally combine the morphological dataset with published sequences using Bayesian methods and perform ancestral state reconstruction for select morphological, ecological and behavioral characters. We recover the new Eocene taxon as the sister taxon to (Anseranatidae+Anatidae) across all analyses, and find that the new taxon represents a novel ecology within known Anseriformes and the Green River taxa. Results provide insight into avian evolution during and following the K-Pg mass extinction and indicate that Anseriformes were likely ancestrally aquatic herbivores with rhamphothecal lamellae..

Introduction

Although extant Anseriformes appear to occupy a relatively narrow range of dominantly aquatic ecologies, both extinct and extant taxa show a broad range of locomotor and feeding modes. Extinct ecotypes exhibited in the comparatively rich Cretaceous-Paleogene fossil record of this clade include the terrestrial, giant flightless birds within Gastornis [1,2, vide 35] with dorsoventrally broad beaks and debated diets [68]; the marine albatross-like Pelagornithidae with pseudotooth projections for piscivorous diets [911]; and the more aquatic, duck-like species such as the wide-billed, but long-legged wader Presbyornis [1214]. Extant Anseriformes include the largely terrestrial Anhimidae that are primarily herbivorous, semiaquatic foragers; Anseranas, an aquatic surface swimmer and grazer that is primarily herbivorous; and a variety of ecotypes within Anatidae [15,16]. Within Anatidae, taxa possess both herbivorous and omnivorous diets with various degrees of specialization; different filter feeding modes comprising grazing, mixed feeders, and diving graspers; and a variety of swimming ecologies that comprise a terrestrial ecology, foot propelled swimming, wing propelled swimming, surface swimming, plunging, and foot and wing propelled swimming [1719]. Diving, as either an escape behavior or in feeding, occurs throughout Anatidae but not in Anhimidae and possibly not in Anseranas [16,20,21].

Despite the ecological breadth of anseriform ecologies and an abundance of recovered extinct taxa, important questions remain regarding the phylogeny and the ecological and behavioral evolution of Anseriformes. It is debated when within stem or crown Anseriformes they evolve more aquatic ecologies, especially as vestigial rhamphothecal lamellae and semipedal webbing were proposed to be present in extant Anhimidae [22]. It is similarly uncertain how herbivory and beak shape evolved within this group. Simulated trait evolution has supported two main patterns of diversification of beak shape and related diet in crown Anseriformes: either a single evolutionary trajectory or several independent and parallel transitions to a narrower, more herbivorous “goose-like” beak are estimated [19]. Phylogenetic placement of extinct anseriform taxa is necessary to inform evolution of these traits in both the stem and the crown.

Morphological analyses containing extinct taxa have resulted in drastically differing topologies [11,13,14,2328]. Additionally, specimens that represent or are referrable to several extinct taxa have not been included or fully captured by scorings in previous analyses, resulting in a higher level of missing data in these analyses. At the same time, fine-grained molecular analyses of extant taxa have produced conflicting results within Anatidae [2931]. Robust placement of extinct taxa is critical as ancestral state reconstructions are optimized differently depending on variations in extinct taxon placement. Better understanding the evolutionary relationships and ecological evolution of Anseriformes and their stem lineages is also necessary for better understanding early avian evolution and biogeography. New Paleogene fossils and robust placement of these and previously described taxa within a phylogenetic context is needed to better understand the answers to these questions.

The predominantly lacustrine Green River Formation of North America preserves an exceptional snapshot of early Eocene diversity in North America [32], but has only produced two aquatic taxa to date: Presbyornis, an anseriform, and Limnofregata Olson 1977 [3335], likely an extinct relative of living frigatebirds [33,34]. Two semiaquatic taxa have also been recovered: an ibis-like taxon [36] and Messelornis nearctica, a stem ralloid [37,38]. Here we describe a new aquatic avian taxon from the early Eocene Fossil Butte Member (FBM, 51.97 ± 0.16 Ma [39]) of the Green River Formation. The taxon was originally illustrated and suggested to be anseriform in [32]. We recover the taxon as a member of Anseriformes. Most known Paleogene Anseriformes have a wide, duck-like beak (i.e. Presbyornis, Nettapterornis [40]), narrow pseudotoothed or dorsoventrally broad beaks (eg. Pelagornis [41] and Gastornis, respectively), or largely unknown beak morphology (i.e. Conflicto antarcticus [28]; Vegavis iaai [23,42,43]). The only other known exceptions to this are the latest Paleocene Anachronornis anhimops Houde et al. [44], the early Eocene Danielsavis nazensis Houde et al. [44], and the Middle Eocene Perplexicervix microcephalon Mayr [45]. Like the latter taxa, the new fossil presents a narrow bill that is most similar to those of the Anhimidae but differs from all extant Anseriformes. We identify this fossil as the holotype specimen of a new species. New x-ray computed tomography (CT) images allow recovery of previously hidden morphologies, revealing it to represent a new taxon and ecology for the Green River Formation. The specimen was found at a near-shore locality of the Fossil Butte Member of the Formation, locality H [32,46], where several lithornithid and neoavian fossils have been previously described [32,47].

We additionally present a new morphological dataset for extinct and extant Galloanseres that includes more exemplars of extinct and extant Anseriformes than any previous matrix. Creation of this dataset included the examination and scoring of specimens of Presbyornis and Telmabates antiquus [48] that have not been included in previous studies. This included assessment of all Presbyornis material housed in the Vertebrate Paleontology Collection of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History and all Telmabates material housed in the Vertebrate Paleontology Collection of the American Museum of Natural History. We perform parsimony analysis on the new morphological matrix, Bayesian analysis on a matrix that combines the new morphological matrix with molecular data, and ancestral state reconstruction of ecological and behavioral traits. Results provide new insights into outstanding issues of avian phylogeny, evolution and diversification.

Institutional abbreviations

AMNH, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY, U.S.A.; FMNH, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, IL, U.S.A.; TMM, the Texas Memorial Museum, Austin, Texas, U.S.A.; USNM, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Specimen numbers are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Specimen numbers of skeletal specimens used for comparison during fossil description and phylogenetic analyses.

Group Name Species Sampled and Specimen Numbers
Tinamiformes Crypturellus undulatus (AMNH 2751, AMNH 6479), Tinamus solitarius (AMNH 21983, USNM 561269, USNM 345133)
Galliformes Lophura bulweri (AMNH 10962, AMNH 16532, USNM 491472), Gallus gallus (AMNH 18555, AMNH 4031, M-12244, USNM 489422), Crax alector (USNM 621698), Macrocephalon maleo (USNM 225130), Megapodius freycinet (USNM 226175, USNM 557015)
Anseriformes Chauna torquata (M-10449, USNM 646637, USNM 614549), Anhima cornuta (USNM 226166), Anseranas semipalmata (USNM 347638, USNM 621019), Dendrocygna guttata (USNM 560774), Anas platyrhynchos (USNM 633396, USNM 610643), Anas platalea (USNM 18549, USNM 614574), Mergus serrator (USNM 490105, USNM 634853, USNM 430710), Chloephaga melanoptera (USNM 491416, USNM 491887), Amazonetta brasiliensis (USNM 560068, USNM 635983), Netta rufina (USNM 292365), Oxyura dominica (USNM 430928), Stictonetta naevosa (USNM 612631), Tadorna tadornoides (USNM 638633), Anser fabalis (USNM 623342, USNM 643021), Anser (Chen) caerulescens (USNM 431549, USNM 345620), Branta canadensis (USNM 488584), Cygnus atratus (USNM 19738), Coscoroba coscoroba (USNM 346635)
Extinct Taxa Paakniwatavis grandei (FMNH PA725), Chaunoides [49], Gastornis (Gastornis giganteus AMNH FR 70 [8,50]), Pelagornis chilensis [9], Protodontopteryx ruthae [51], Telmabates antiquus (AMNH FR 3166–3186 [48]), Presbyornis (Presbyornis pervetus: USNM PAL 483163–483166, USNM PAL 510082, USNM PAL 641330; Presbyornis sp.: USNM PAL ACC 2016973, USNM PAL ACC 335940, USNM PAL ACC 392324, USNM PAL ACC 393002, USNM PAL 498770–498771, USNM PAL 516605, USNM PAL 617185, USNM PAL 299845–299848, USNM PAL 618166–618180, USNM PAL 618183, USNM PAL 618189–618200, USNM PAL 618202, USNM PAL 618204–618207, USNM PAL 618209–618210, USNM PAL 618212–618215, USNM PAL 618218–618219, USNM PAL 618223–618224; Presbyornis isoni: USNM PAL 294117; [22,52]; CT scans from [53] of Presbyornis sp. USNM PAL 200846), Vegavis iaai [23,42], Conflicto antarcticus [28], Nettapterornis oxfordi [54], Gallinuloides wyomingensis [55], Ichthyornis dispar [56], Lithornis promiscuus (UNSM PAL 336570, USNM PAL 424072, USNM PAL ACC 378571, USNM PAL 391983; [57]; CT scans from [53] of Lithornis promiscuus USNM PAL 391983), Calciavis grandei [47], Asteriornis maastrichtensis [11], Wilaru tedfordi and Wilaru prideauxi [58,59], Danielsavis nazensis [44,60], Anachronornis anhimops [44,60], Perplexicervix microcephalon [45].

Systematic paleontology

AVES Linnaeus, 1758 sensu [61]

NEOGNATHAE Pycraft, 1900 sensu [61]

ANSERIFORMES Wagler, 1831 [62]

Paakniwatavis grandei, gen. et sp. nov.

Holotype specimen

FMNH PA725, a partial skeleton and tracheal rings preserved in a kerogen-poor laminated micrite slab (Figs 1 and 2). Measurements are provided in Table 2. Most of the vertebrae are absent or obscured where present. The shoulder girdle, thoracic vertebrae, ribs, pelvis, femora, synsacrum, caudal vertebrae and pygostyle have been eroded due to taphonomic processes. It appears that bacteria-induced or some other organic erosion of the bone has occurred. This type and extent of organic erosion is unique within recovered avian fossils from FBM. Similar taphonomy has been reported in an early Cretaceous Enantiornithine [63], the early Cretaceous Microraptor gui [64], and several other Jurassic and Cretaceous avialan theropods [65,66], although much less erosion and deformation of the bone has occurred in these specimens compared to that of the holotype specimen of P. grandei. It has been suggested that this taphonomic phenomenon is due to changes in matrix chemistry caused by water being trapped between the feathers and the body [64]. Scanning electron microscopy and additional analysis of the holotype specimen of P. grandei is necessary to determine the cause of this rare taphonomy.

Fig 1. Photograph (A) and line drawing (B) of the holotype specimen of Paakniwatavis grandei (FMNH PA725).

Fig 1

Extremely crushed bone and bone margin is delimited with dashed margins. Anatomical abbreviations: prx, premaxilla; orb, orbital margin; mnd, mandible; cvt, cervical vertebrae; tvt, thoracic vertebrae; syn, synsacrum; pyg, pygostyle; cor, coracoid; scp, scapula; fur, furcula; str, sternum; rbs, ribs; hum, humerus; uln, ulna; rad, radius; rde, radiale; cmc, carpometacarpus; mII:1, phalanx 1 of manual digit II; mtII:2, phalanx 2 of manual digit II; ili, ilium; fem, femur; tbt, tibiotarsus; tmt, tarsometatarsus; mtI, metatarsal I; I:1, phalanx 1 of pedal digit I; II:1, phalanx 1 of pedal digit II; III:1, phalanx 1 of pedal digit III; IV:1, phalanx 1 of pedal digit IV.

Fig 2. Photograph (A) and line drawing (B) of the holotype specimen of Paakniwatavis grandei (FMNH PA725).

Fig 2

Bone is unfilled. Extremely crushed bone and bone margin is delimited with dashed margins. Anatomical abbreviations: prx, premaxilla; max, maxilla; jug, jugal; orb, orbital margin; rmf, rostral mandibular fenestra; scl, scleral ossicles; mnd, mandible; rde, radiale; cmc, carpometacarpus.

Table 2. Selected measurements of Paakniwatavis grandei in millimeters (mm), taken from surface of the holotype specimen slab (left/right) compared with taken and previously published measurements of Presbyornis [22,52], Telmabates antiquus [48], and Nettapterornis oxfordi [54].

Pedal phalanges are described using the format (digit:phalanx). Measurements are given for holotype specimens only.

Measurement (mm) Paakniwatavis grandei Presbyornis Telmabates antiquus Nettapterornis oxfordi
Total skull length 64.1 90 100.0
Rostrum length 28.2 38.4
Furcula width 19.3 7.0
Coracoid length 32.7/~29.6 33.5–35.3 42.3–43.8 48.0
Coracoid width at midshaft 5.44/4.0 8.7
Humerus length -/71.3 119.3
Humerus width midshaft -/7.4 9.7
Ulna length 58.4/63.2
Carpometacarpus length -/~30.2 46.5–50 63.1 69.5
Manual phalanx II: digit 1 length 15.5/- 19.4 29.6–30.4 30.2
Manual phalanx II: digit 2 length 9.6/- 22.7
Synsacral length 50.3 >52
Pelvis acetabular width 19.5 5.1–6.4
Femur length 40.6/41.0 57–62 69–72
Tibiotarsus length -/66.1
Tarsometatarsus length 38.6/38.1 120 estimated, 105–120 estimated minimum Minimum 105 estimated
I:1 length 9.5/11.1
II:1 length 7.4/6.7
II:2 length 13.4/14.3
III:1 length 19.8/18.5
III:2 length 13.7/13.1
III:3 length 11.7/9.7
IV:1 length 14.2/11.2
IV:2 length 9.1/10.2
IV:3 length 6.9/7.8
IV:4 length 8.8/7.3

The holotype specimen was scanned using dual tube x-ray computed tomography at the PaleoCT Lab at the University of Chicago, which can scan specimens with a resolution of up to 0.4 mm. As the specimen slab was large, it was scanned using a two-part multiscan that was combined to form one image sequence. The voxel size of the combined scan is 103.8710. The specimen is housed in the Department of Geology of FMNH. CT data generated during the current study are available in the Supplementary Data via DRYAD under DOI 10.5061/dryad.v15dv4208, and the rest of the Supplementary Data is available via Morphobank [67] under Project 4001 (http://morphobank.org/permalink/?P4001).

Etymology

Paakniwatavis references Paakniwat, used by the Shoshoni tribe indigenous to the region of the recovery site and means “Water Spirit” [68]. The Water Spirits are dangerous supernatural beings that lure people to their death with child-like cries. The name references the aquatic ecology of this taxon. The species honors Dr. Lance Grande, who collected the holotype specimen, in recognition of his leading research on the faunas of the Green River Formation.

Type locality and horizon

The holotype specimen was collected from FBM [69] Locality H (F-2 H in [32,45]). FBM Locality H is one of several near-shore localities that have produced avian fossils, and is located in the northeastern near-shore region. Locality H is within a four meter thick horizon representing a few hundred to a few thousand years of the early Eocene [46]. The horizons of the near-shore deposits of FBM are thicker than those of the mid-lake localities due to increased sedimentation near the shore. The fossil-bearing KPLM facies are characterized by thick kerogen-poor calcite laminae and instances of thin organic laminae. Laminae alterations can be differentiated by inconsistent texture where the organic laminae is absent [46]. Locality H has thus far yielded the highest number of avian fossils comprising lithornithids [47] (Palaeognathae), Gallinuloides wyomingensis [37], see also galliform in [70], two frogmouth-like specimens [71], a possible oilbird [35], four frigatebirds [33,34,72], an ibis-like taxon [36], a turaco [38], two Messelornis nearctica specimens [70,73], a jacamar-like bird [70], a hoopoe-like bird [32], stem rollers (Coraciiformes [74]), stem Psittacopasseres [75], additional taxa within Telluraves [76,77], and several unknown birds [32]. The near-shore deposits are additionally characterized by juvenile fish being more commonly preserved, abundant benthonic invertebrates, stingrays (Batoidea), lizards, crocodiles, turtles, and non-flying mammals. Locality H also has the only known amphibian preserved within FBM [78].

Diagnosis

Paakniwatavis grandei is diagnosed by a proposed unique combination of characters comprising (1) a mediolaterally narrow rostrum (character 3:state 1; Figs 1 and 3), (2) an elongate retroarticular process (Fig 3; 241:2, 254:2), (3) a dorsoventrally thick furcula (Figs 1 and 3; 424:2), (4) thoracic vertebrae that are not solely heterocoelous (286:2), (5) presence of a supracoracoid nerve foramen (Fig 4; 391:1), (6) lack of a spur on the carpometacarpus (509:1), (7) femora that are half the length of the tibiotarsi (Fig 1; 597:1), (8) presence of a prominent tubercle laterodistal to the pons supratendineus of the tibiotarsus (643:1), (9) tarsometatarsi that are just over half the length of the tibiotarsi (Fig 1; 656:1), (10) a medial hypotarsal crest that is projected farther plantar than the lateral crest (Fig 4; 668:1), and (11) a deep sulcus extensorius of the tarsometatarsus (Fig 1; 686:2). Diagnosis for the genus as per the species.

Fig 3. Comparison of anseriform traits in Paakniwatavis grandei (FMNH PA725) to those of the extinct Presbyornis and extant Anseriformes (Chauna 21orquate, Anseranas semipalmata, and Chloephaga melanoptera).

Fig 3

Photograph (A) and CT scan slice (B) of the holotype specimen of P. grandei (FMNH PA725), with close-ups (B1 and B2) of CT scan slices of the caudal mandible. Photographs of the skull and mandible of (C) C. 21orquate, (D) A. semipalmata, I C. melanoptera, and (F) Presbyornis sp. (USNM 299846). Photograph (G) and CT scan slice (G1) of the left tarsometatarsus and pedal phalanges of P. grandei. Photographs of (H) the left tarsometatarsus and pedal phalanges of Presbyornis sp. (USNM ACC 335940) and (I) the right tarsometatarsus and pedal phalanges of 21orquateata. Photographs of the furcula of (J) 21orquateata, (K) A. semipalmata, (L) Anas platyrhynchos, and (M) Presbyornis sp. (USNM ACC335940). Photograph (N) and CT scan slice (O) of the furcula of P. grandei from the holotype specimen. Anatomical abbreviations: prx, premaxilla; orb, orbital margin; mnd, mandible; rta, retroarticular process; rde, radiale; cmc, carpometacarpus; sym, symphysis; tmt, tarsometatarsus; I:1, phalanx 1 of pedal digit I; II:1, phalanx 1 of pedal digit II; III:1, phalanx 1 of pedal digit III; III:2, phalanx 2 of pedal digit III; IV:1, phalanx 1 of pedal digit IV.

Fig 4. Comparison of the coracoid and hypotarsus of the tarsometatarsus of Paakniwatavis grandei (FMNH PA725) to that of the extinct Presbyornis, Telmabates antiquus, Chaunoides antiquus and Nettapterornis oxfordi and extant Anseriformes.

Fig 4

Line drawings of the coracoids and hypotarsi of (A) Anhima cornuta, (B) C. antiquus, (C) Anseranas semipalmata, (D) Dendrocygna guttata, (E) Presbyornis sp., (F) P. grandei, (G) T. antiquus and (H) A. oxfordi. Coracoids are depicted in dorsal aspect, hypotarsi are depicted in proximal and plantar aspects. L and M in panel (A) denote the lateral and medial sides of each element. (F1 and F2) are segmented hypotarsi of the left tarsometatarsus of P. grandei in lateroplantar aspect. (F3 and F4) are CT scan slices of the same tarsometatarsus of P. grandei. Anatomical abbreviations: acr, processus acrocoracoideus; hmf, humeral facet; sct, scapular facet; prc, procoracoid process; fns, supracoracoid nerve foramen; pno, pneumatic opening; lpr, lateral process; mpr, medial process; mhc, medial hypotarsal crest; 1, sulcus for tendon of musculus flexor hallucis longus (fhl); 2, sulcus or canal for tendon of musculus flexor digitorum longus (fdl); 3, sulcus for tendon of musculus flexor perforatus digiti 2 (fp2); 4, sulcus for tendon of musculus flexor perforans et perforatus digiti 2 (fpp2); 5, sulcus for muscularus fibularis longus (fbl).

Differential diagnosis

The rostrum shape exhibited by this taxon is unlike most other previously recovered Paleogene Anseriformes. Due to this Paakniwatavis grandei is easily distinguished from Nettapterornis, which has a mediolaterally wide, duck-like bill that is mediolaterally wider than the width measured from the left paroccipital process to the right paroccipital process. Paakniwatavis in contrast possesses a mediolaterally narrow bill that is narrower than the width between its parocciptal processes and, in this feature, is more similar to extant Anhimidae (Figs 1 and 3). The tomial margin of the bill of Nettapterornis is similarly dorsoventrally thick and recurved, unlike the straight and dorsoventrally narrow facial margin of the bill in Paakniwatavis (Fig 3). The nares of Paakniwatavis are over half the length of the rostrum, whereas that of Nettapterornis is less than half of their rostral length. The coracoid in Paakniwatavis is more elongate relative to the width of the sternal facet than that of Nettapterornis (Fig 4). The rami of the furcula are extremely thick in Paakniwatavis (Fig 1) compared to the thin furcula of Nettapterornis (Fig 3). The sulcus ligamentosus transversus is more truncate in Paakniwatavis than in Nettapterornis. The fossa olecrani of Paakniwatavis is more shallow than that of Nettapterornis. Paakniwatavis has a deeper fossa infratrochlearis of the carpometacarpus than Nettapterornis. The craniocaudal lengths of manual digits II and III at the synostosis are subequal in Paakniwatavis, whereas II extends further distally than III in Nettapterornis.

As with Nettapterornis, Paakniwatavis can be differentiated from Presbyornis due to Presbyornis possessing a mediolaterally wide, duck-like bill that is mediolaterally wider than the width measured from the left paroccipital process to the right paroccipital process. The tomial margin of the bill of Presbyornis is again like that of Nettapterornis and dorsoventrally thick and recurved, unlike the straight and dorsoventrally narrow facial margin of the bill in Paakniwatavis (Fig 3). Similarly, the nares of Paakniwatavis are over half the length of the rostrum, whereas those of Presbyornis are less than half of their rostral length. The crista tympanica of the quadrate terminates within the ventral half of the quadrate in Paakniwatavis, whereas it terminates within the dorsal half in Presbyornis. The tuberculum subcapitulare is separated from the squamosal capitulum in Paakniwatavis, but is contiguous with the capitulum in Presbyornis. The relative heights of the rostral and caudal apices of the coronoid process of the mandible are subequal in Paakniwatavis, but the rostral apex is higher in Presbyornis. The mandibular ramus caudal to the rostral fenestra mandibulae is deep and concave along the medial face in Paakniwatavis, and is relatively shallow in Presbyornis. A mandibular ventral angle is prominent in Presbyornis, but not in Paakniwatavis. While the fenestra rostralis mandibulae is slit-like in Paakniwatavis, it is transverse and largely perforate in Presbyornis (Fig 3). The synsacral count of Paakniwatavis is within 14–19 vertebrae, whereas it is within 10–13 for Presbyornis. In the coracoid, a small pneumatic foramen directly below the scapular cotyla is present in Presbyornis but is absent in Paakniwatavis and Nettapterornis. The rami of the furcula are again extremely thick in Paakniwatavis compared to the thin furcula of Presbyornis. The acromion process of the scapula is truncate unlike the cranially elongate processes of Presbyornis. The dorsal angle of the scapula is caudal to the midpoint of the shaft in Presbyornis, but is at the midpoint in Paakniwatavis. The fossa pneumotricipitalis of the humerus is pneumatic in Paakniwatavis and Nettapterornis but apneumatic in Presbyornis. Paakniwatavis has a narrower crista deltopectoralis of the humerus than Presbyornis. Paakniwatavis has a deeper impressio coracobrachialis cranialis than Presbyornis, The sulcus ligamentosus transversus is more truncate in Paakniwatavis than in Presbyornis. The fossa m. brachialis is located more medially in Paakniwatavis. The fossa olecrani of Paakniwatavis is again more shallow than that of Presbyornis. The depression radialis of the ulna is deeper in Paakniwatavis. The labrum dorsalis of the carpometacarpus is more sharply angled in Paakniwatavis. The epicondylus medialis of the tibiotarsus is more pronounced in Paakniwatavis than in Presbyornis. The epicondylus medialis is less pronounced than those of Presbyornis or Chaunoides antiquus. The sulcus extensorius tibiotarsus opens under the pons supratendineus along the midline in Paakniwatavis rather than medially. The tarsometatarsus is approximately half the length of the tibiotarsus or less in Paakniwatavis, whereas the length of these elements is subequal in Presbyornis. The lateral cotyle of the tarsometatarsus is more shallow in Paakniwatavis. In Paakniwatavis, pedal digit IV: phalanx IV is longer than IV: III, whereas the opposite is true in Presbyornis.

When compared to extinct taxa, the narrow bill of Paakniwatavis is most like those of Anachronornis anhimops and Danielsavis nazensis. The rostrum of Paakniwatavis can be distinguished from that of Danielsavis as the nares of Paakniwatavis do not extend as far anteriorly into the rostrum as those of Danielsavis do. The coronoid processes of the mandible are tuberculate and subtle compared to those of Danielsavis (Fig 2, Mayr et al. [60]). The rami of the furcula are much thicker in Paakniwatavis compared to the thin furcula of of Danielsavis. The acromion process of the scapula is truncate and unlike the cranially elongate processof Danielsavis. The acrocoracoid process of the coracoid is more sharply hooked than that of Danielsavis (Fig 5, Mayr et al. [60]). The shaft of the coracoid of Paakniwatavis is wider and more robust compared to that of Danielsavis. The impressio m. sternocorocoidei is much deeper in Paakniwatavis compared to the shallow impression in Danielsavis (Fig 4). A robust additional medial projection above the medial angle that is part of the origin of the sternocoracoclavicular ligament is present in Danielsavis but absent in Paakniwatavis. The length of the ulna is longer than that of the humerus in Danielsavis, whereas in Paakniwatavis the ulna is slightly more truncate than the humerus. Danielsavis has a robust index process that extends beyond the articular facet of manual digit II:1 which is not present in Paakniwatavis.

Fig 5. Resulting consensus tree from Bayesian analysis of 719 morphological characters and 158,368 base pairs.

Fig 5

Clade credibility values greater than 50% are annotated above branches. Extinct taxa are delimited with daggers. A line drawing of the holotype specimen of Paakniwatavis grandei is overlaid on the tree and a reconstruction of this species is shown to the right of the tree. Icons represent definitive ancestral state reconstruction of the earliest transitions. Only the first major transitions for Anseriformes are shown, with subsequent transitions excluded. The insert to the right of the tree displays how results changed when Wilaru was included in analysis.

The angulus mandibulae of the mandible is more truncate in height compared to that of Anachronornis (Fig 2, Mayr et al. [60]). The rami of the furcula are much thicker in Paakniwatavis compared to the thin furcula of Anachronornis. The shaft of the coracoid of Paakniwatavis is again wider and more robust compared to that of Anachronornis. The impressio m. sternocorocoidei is much further excavated in Paakniwatavis compared to the shallow impression in Anachronornis (Fig 4). A robust additional medial projection above the medial angle is again present in Anachronornis but absent in Paakniwatavis. Paakniwatavis has a deeper impressio coracobrachialis cranialis than Anachronornis. The sulcus ligamentosus transversus of the humerus is deeper in Paakniwatavis than in Anachronornis. The head of the humerus in Anachronornis is triangular unlike the rounded head in Paakniwatavis and is projected much further proximally than that of Paakniwatavis.

As in Anachronornis and Danielsavis, Paakniwatavis can be differentiated from Perplexicervix due to the shaft of the coracoid of Paakniwatavis being wider and more robust in Paakniwatavis, and again Paakniwatavis possesses a more deeply excavated impressio m. sternocorocoidei (Fig 4). Additionally, the supracoracoid nerve foramen of Perplexicervix is smaller and located along the midline of the shaft, whereas it is larger and located further medially in Paakniwatavis.Paakniwatavis can be distinguished from Telmabates due to the number of synsacral vertebrae present. The synsacral count of Paakniwatavis is within 14–19 vertebrae, whereas it is within 10–13 for Telmabates as it is in Presbyornis. Telmabates has a small pneumatic foramen directly below the scapular coracoid like Presbyornis, and again this is absent in Paakniwatavis. The acromion process of the scapula is again truncate and unlike the cranially elongate processes of Telmabates. The dorsal angle of the scapula is caudal to the midpoint of the shaft in Telmabates, but is at the midpoint in Paakniwatavis. The incisura capitis of the humerus is deep in Paakniwatavis but shallow in Telmabates. The fossa pneumotricipitalis of the humerus is pneumatic in Paakniwatavis but apneumatic in Telmabates. Paakniwatavis has a deeper impressio coracobrachialis cranialis than Telmabates, The sulcus ligamentosus transversus of the humerus is more truncate in Paakniwatavis than in Telmabates. The epicondylus medialis of the tibiotarsus is more pronounced in Paakniwatavis than in Telmabates. Paakniwatavis has a dome-like crista that overhangs the proximal margin of the fossa pneumotricipitalis of the humerus, whereas this crista is typical in Telmabates. The impressio m. pectoralis is deeper in Paakniwatavis. The trochlea carpalis of the carpometacarpus is deeper in Paakniwatavis. The epicondylaris medialis depression is more shallow in Paakniwatavis than in Telmabates.

Paakniwatavis can be differentiated from Chaunoides Alvarenga 1999 due to differences in the coracoid and tarsometatarsus. Within the coracoid, the primary axis of the scapular cotyla is skewed laterally in Paakniwatavis, Presbyornis, Telmabates and Nettapterornis but is centralized in Chaunoides (Fig 4). The sternal facet is skewed ventrally in Chaunoides, whereas it projects caudally in Paakniwatavis. In the tarsometatarsus, the major hypotarsal ridge in Paakniwatavis is hooked distally. The epicondylus medialis of the tibiotarsus is more pronounced in Paakniwatavis than in Chaunoides.

Description and comparison

Skull and mandible

The skull and rostrum are preserved in dorsolateral aspect. The right carpometacarpus has broken through the skull and mandible and caused deformation along the caudoventral margins of these elements; however, many of the elements obscured by the carpometacarpus can still be seen in the CT scan. The bill length is roughly equal to that of the cranium. It is mediolaterally narrow and tapered toward the anterior margin, as in Anhimidae, but the terminus of the rostrum is not strongly hooked like those of Anhimidae. It is only slightly decurved and is most similar to those of Anseranatidae. The tip of the premaxilla additionally appears to be slightly thickened, as in Anseranatidae. This is unlike the mediolaterally broad, duck-like bills of most anseriform-like fossils such as Nettapterornis and Presbyornis and most like those of Anachronornis and Danielsavis [44,60]. The caudal and anterior portions of the nares are largely broken, but CT scans (see Supplementary Data via 10.5061/dryad.v15dv4208) show that the nares would have been holorhinal and rostral to the zona flexoria craniofacialis (ZFC), as in all Galloanserines. The length of the nares is over half that of the rostrum, a condition only present in Anseriformes within Anhimidae. The cranium immediately caudal to the ZFC appears to have had the pneumatized swelling seen in Chauna which is described in [13] (character 10). The overall shape and size of the cranium is most similar to those of Anhimidae or Anseranatidae. The robust left jugal is present between the rostrum and left ramus of the mandible. A prominent, lateroventrally projecting supraorbital crest is present, like those of Anhimidae [79]. CT data reveals that the postorbital process is elongate, as in most Anseriformes (Supplementary Data via 10.5061/dryad.v15dv4208). The zygomatic process is absent, as in all Anseriformes, including both Anhimidae and Anseranatidae. At least three large, broad scleral ossicles have been preserved along the rostral margin of the orbit. Fonticuli within the interorbital area appear to be absent.

The mandible is dorsoventrally thin along the proximal margin and widens caudal to the coronoid process. While both rami are visible on the surface of the slab, much of the left mandible and the left quadrate are obscured by the carpometacarpus and are only visible within the CT data (Supplementary Data via 10.5061/dryad.v15dv4208). The rostral terminus of the mandible is broken and it cannot be assessed whether it was decurved, as in Anhimidae. The rostral mandibular fenestrae are rostrocaudally elongate and slit-like but appear to open rostrally. The shape, angle and placement of the fenestrae are most similar to those of Anseranatidae. The coronoid processes are tuberculate and subtle compared to those of most Anseriformes, including those of Anhimidae and Danielsavis (Fig 2, Mayr et al. [60]). Similarly, the angulus mandibulae are truncate in height compared to those of many Anseriformes, including Anachronornis (Fig 2, Mayr et al. [60]). CT data reveals an elongate medial process at the condylar area of the mandible, as in all Galloanserines. On the right ramus, a slender, recurved retroarticular process that has been severed from the mandible by the carpometacarpus is visible in the CT data (Fig 3, Supplementary Data via via 10.5061/dryad.v15dv4208). It is significantly dorsoventrally thinner than that of Anachronornis (Fig 2, Mayr et al. [60]). A retroarticular process is present in all Galloanserines and most included fossils (Fig 3).

The left quadrate is visible in the CT data (Supplementary Data via 10.5061/dryad.v15dv4208). Most features of the quadrate have been obliterated, including the orbital crest. No foramen is present between the capitulae, but a foramen is present on the medial face of the otic process, as in all Anseriformes. A tuberculum subcapitulare is present as in all Galloanserines. A prominentia submeatica appears to be present, as in all Anseriformes.

Axial skeleton

The atlas, axis and the third cervical vertebra are poorly preserved in ventrolateral aspect near the furcula, with two additional cervical vertebrae preserved caudal to the third cervical vertebra in ventral aspect. The dorsal spines are rounded and not dorsoventrally prominent. This condition is more similar to that of Anseranatidae rather than that of Anhimidae. The third cervical vertebra appears to be more elongate and to have a less prominent dorsal spine, suggesting that the cervical series elongates caudally.

The thoracic and pelvic areas of the specimen are poorly preserved. The bone appears to have eroded due to taphonomic processes, possibly due to bacterial erosion. Several caudalmost cervical vertebrae and thoracic vertebrae are visible on the surface of the slab and within the CT data (see Supplementary Data via 10.5061/dryad.v15dv4208). Most of the thoracic vertebrae are preserved in ventral aspect. CT data reveals that the thoracic series is not completely heterocoelous. This condition is present in Presbyornis, Nettapterornis and Telmabates but lost in extant Anseriformes. The thoracic vertebrae do not fuse to form a notarium. This condition is present in all extant Anseriformes with the exception of Anseranatidae.

The synsacrum is preserved in ventral aspect. CT data reveals that at least 14 synsacral vertebrae are present (see Supplementary Data via 10.5061/dryad.v15dv4208). This is the condition in all extant Anseriformes. Telmabates and Presbyornis have 13 or fewer synsacral vertebrae. The sulcus ventralis of the synsacrum is present and appears to have been deep. A deep sulcus ventralis is also present in both Anhimidae and Anseranatidae. Several poorly preserved caudal vertebrae with indiscernible features are present in the CT data (see Supplementary Data via 10.5061/dryad.v15dv4208). A craniocaudally stout pygostyle is visible caudal to the synsacrum on the surface of the slab.

Shoulder girdle

The symphysis and ventral portion of the clavicles of the furcula are preserved in caudal aspect. The furcula is more robust than those of most Anatidae but more gracile and thin than those of Anhimidae or Anseranatidae (Fig 3). A processus interclavicularis dorsalis is absent, and an apophysis is absent.

Both coracoids are preserved in ventral aspect. The sternal bases and shafts of the coracoids can be seen. The acrocoracoid process is robust and hooked, like that of Anachronornis (Fig 5, Mayr et al. [60]). CT data reveals a procoracoid process and supracoracoid nerve foramen to be present. A procoracoid process is present in many extant and extinct Anseriformes, including Anhimidae and Anseranatidae (Fig 4). Supracoracoid nerve foramina are present in all included extinct Anseriformes with the exception of Conflicto, Anhimidae, and Anseranatidae. They are also present within the included Pelagornithidae. Supracoracoid nerve foramina are absent in all included extant Anatidae with the exception of Cygnus atratus. Portions of the scapulae are present near to or overlapping the coracoids, but most of their morphology is indiscernible.

Forelimbs

The right humerus is preserved in cranioventral aspect. The sulcus ligamentosus transversus is extremely deep; more like the condition in Anseranatidae than that of Anhimidae. The crista deltopectoralis is prominent, rounded and flares cranio-laterally like those of most Anseriformes. The caput humeri is bulbous and prominent. Also, as in Anas, the impressio coracobrachialis is relatively deep. The condylus dorsalis is small and hamate. The tuberculum supracondylare ventrale is large and bulbous like that of Anas. The epicondylus dorsalis appears to be distally extensive, and most similar to that of Anas. CT data reveals the morphology of the caudal humerus; the crista proximally edging the fossa pneumotricipitalis appears to have been domed slightly, like that of Nettapterornis.

The right radius and ulna are preserved in ventral aspect. Most features of these bones cannot be seen or were not preserved. The ulnar body is thick and robust, but shorter than that of the humerus. The olecranon is much shorter and more rounded than that of Anas, and is most similar in size and shape to that of Chauna. The impressio brachialis appears to be proximally deep and ovoid, similar those of Anhimidae. Much of the distal portion of the ulna is obscured by the skull. There appears to be small pneumatic foramen just under the cotyla humeralis of the radius. The left ulna and radius are present but are not as well preserved as those of the right. They are preserved in dorsal aspect.

The right carpometacarpus overlaps the mandible and has broken on top of the skull. It is preserved in ventral aspect. The processus pisiformis is elongate, rounded and caudally oriented; it is most similar to that of Anseranatidae. The rim of the dorsal trochlea is prominent and strongly angled, which is also similar to the condition of Anseranatidae. The processus extensorius is identical in size and shape to that of Anseranatidae as it is triangular in shape with a rounded point. The os carpi ulnare is present as well and is visible in the CT scans (see Supplementary Data via 10.5061/dryad.v15dv4208). The os metacarpale minus is obscured by the skull but appears to be dorso-ventrally thick. Only the distal shaft and condylar area of the left carpometacarpus is preserved and is in cranial aspect. The facies articularis digitalis major on the left carpometacarpus form a 3-pronged distal end with rounded termini. A prominent crista is present towards the dorsal aspect of the digital articular area; it is not seen in Anas and in Chauna it is hook-like. The os metacarpale minus appears broken and only a small spatium intermetacarpale appears present, but this could be exaggerated by crushing. The phalanges digitus majoris are preserved in dorsal aspect, although digit I is somewhat obscured by the carpometacarpus. The pila cranialis of phalanx dig. majoris I appears robust. Phalanx II of this digit is thin and elongate.

Sternum

The sternum is extremely poorly preserved but appears to have been broad and subrectangular like that of Anas. A prominent carina is distorted but preserved. An elongate spina externa appears to be present, but it cannot be discerned with confidence whether this is part of the sternum or a vertebra lying under the sternum. What appears to be an isolated uncinate process looks visible on a rib located to the left of the sternum; however, this also cannot be assessed with confidence.

Pelvic girdle

The pelvis is preserved in ventral aspect. A pair of acetabular struts are visible in the CT data. Portions of the postacetabular ilium, ischium and a medially curved pubis can be seen more clearly in the CT data.

Hindlimbs

The right and left femora are poorly preserved. The head of the right femur appears robust like those of Anhimidae or Anseranatidae. The femora are half the length of the tibiotarsi. The right and left tibiotarsi are preserved in cranial view. All that remains of the left tibiotarsus is the mid and distal shaft and the condylar area. The bodies of the tibiotarsi are long and slender. The entire right tibiotarsus appears is preserved along with the head and proximal shaft of the right fibula. The cranial cnemial crest is obscured by the right femur, but appears prominent and acuminate, very similar to that of Anseranas. The canalis and sulcus extensorius appear to be deep, and the pons supratendineus is ossified. No intratendinous ossification is present.

The tarsometatarsi are just over half the length of the tibiotarsi and are preserved in medio-dorsal aspect. The hypotarsus is visible in the CT data (Fig 4). The medial hypotarsal crest is more prominent, as in most Anseriformes. Two sulci for flexor tendons are present. A canal for the flexor digitorum longus (FDL) tendon is not present. This condition is most similar to those of Anhimidae, Chaunoides, and Presbyornis, although the hypotarsal sulci of P. grandei are much deeper and are more comparable in depth to those of the anatid Dendrocygna guttata (Fig 4). Anseranatidae conversely have an FDL tendon that is enclosed in a canal and exhibit four shallow sulci for flexor tendons (Fig 4 and [80]). The hypotarsi of all extant Anatidae are trisulcate, with a canal present for the FDL tendon, as in Dendrocygna (Fig 4 and [80]). Both tarsometatarsi exhibit deep extensor sulci that extend to the distal portion of the tibiotarsus. In the right tarsometatarsus, trochlea metatarsal III reaches the most distally. Trochlea metatarsal II is deflected plantarly, as in Anatidae. The phalanges are elongate like those of Anas. IV is shorter than III but the hallux is elongate. Phalanx III is longer than the length of the tarsometatarsus.

Body mass

Femur length was the best predictor of body mass in extant volant birds (R2 = 0.9028 [81]) that could be obtained from FMNH PA725, Presbyornis [22,52] and Telmabates [48]. Average femur length measurements were used to calculate body mass for each taxon. An approximate mean body mass estimate for P. grandei is 304g based on the published allometric equation using femoral length from [81]. The approximate mean body mass estimates for Presbyornis and Telmabates are 882g and 1423g, respectively based on the same equation.

Materials and methods

Nomenclatural acts

The electronic edition of this article conforms to the requirements of the amended International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, and hence the new names contained herein are available under that Code from the electronic edition of this article. This published work and the nomenclatural acts it contains have been registered in ZooBank, the online registration system for the ICZN. The ZooBank LSIDs (Life Science Identifiers) can be resolved and the associated information viewed through any standard web browser by appending the LSID to the prefix ""http://zoobank.org/"". The LSID for this publication is: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:2D9C382C-87C9-49DB-929D-E99D3871F316. The electronic edition of this work was published in a journal with an ISSN, and has been archived and is available from the following digital repositories: PubMed Central, LOCKSS, bioRxiv.

Phylogenetic analyses and ancestral state estimation

Comparative materials

Specimens used for the description and phylogenetic analyses came from the Bird Division of FMNH, the Ornithology Department of AMNH, the Ornithology Department of USNM, and the Texas Memorial Museum. Osteological terminology largely follows [82]. Specimen numbers for examined taxa are presented in Table 1. Extinct taxa were scored from direct observation where possible. CT scans of the skulls of Presbyornis and Lithornis promiscuus were loaned from USNM for examination (originally produced for [53]). All USNM Presbyornis material and all AMNH Telmabates antiquus material was directly examined. Extinct taxa scored from photographs when necessary comprise Ichthyornis dispar [56,83], Gastornis gigantea and Gastornis steini [7,50], Pelagornis chilensis [9], Protodontopteryx ruthae [51], Vegavis iaai [23,42,43], Conflicto antarcticus [28], Nettapterornis oxfordi [54], Wilaru tedfordi [59] and Wilaru prideauxi [58]), Presbyornis [22,52], Chaunoides antiquus [49], Anachronornis anhimops [44], Danielsavis nazensis [44], Perplexicervix microcephalon [45], Lithornis promiscuus [57], Calciavis grandei [71], Asteriornis maastrichtensis [11], Gallinuloides wyomingensis [55], Danielsavis nazensis [44,60], Anachronornis anhimops [44,60], and Perplexicervix microcephalon [45]. Scorings for separate Gastornis, Presbyornis and Wilaru species were concatenated into genus-level taxa for more robust phylogenetic placement, especially since most recovered Presbyornis specimens have not been assigned to the species level.

CT scan

PA 725 was CT scanned at the University of Chicago by April Neander, using the facilities of the Department of Organismal Biology and Anatomy. A two-part multiscan was conducted in order to achieve the highest resolution possible. The scan sheet is available on Morphobank [67] under Project 4001 (http://morphobank.org/permalink/?P4001) and the scan sheet along with all CT tiffs are available on DRYAD under DOI 10.5061/dryad.v15dv4208. The multi scan was reconstructed with the aid of Matthew Colbert at the University of Texas at Austin. CT scans were segmented by the authors at the University of Texas at Austin using the Avizo program. All segmentation files are available on Morphobank.

Character matrices and ancestral state reconstruction

The morphological data matrix is built on that of [79,84] following the methodology discussed in those publications, but was modified to comprise 719 discrete characters and 41 taxa, 16 of which are extinct. Anachronornis, Danielsavis and Perplexicervix were later added to the matrix following release of the recent publications on these taxa [44,45,60]; however, addition of these taxa did not change the phylogenetic results of any analyses. Due to this, we have included discussion of their relationships within the manuscript but have made the matrix and resulting trees that include these taxa publicly available in the Supplementary Data on Morphobank [67] under Project 4001 (http://morphobank.org/permalink/?P4001).

Most of the characters detail skeletal morphology, although several characters additionally describe musculature, the syrinx, behavior, and ecology. Ten additional characters were added to the morphological matrix for ancestral state reconstruction of relevant traits that detail habitat preference, swimming mode, diet, status of rhamphothecal lamellae, status of pedal webbing, feeding mode, syrinx anatomy, and the relative length of pedal phalanx III compared to that of the tarsometatarsus. Ancestral state reconstructions were performed in Mesquite [85] using parsimony methods. All character descriptions are provided in the S1 Appendix and all data matrices and analyses logs have been made publicly available on Morphobank [67].

Characters from several previously published large-scale morphological datasets focused on early avian divergences and galloanserine-like fossils [13,14,27,52,8689] were evaluated for use in this iteration of the Musser and Cracraft [79] dataset, and characters from these matrices have been cited where a character was incorporated from a previously published matrix or where characters overlap with our matrix. Characters were additionally used from several previously published matrices which have also been cited in the S1 Appendix.

We additionally created a combined data matrix comprising the morphological data coupled with all available mitochondrial genomes available on GenBank [31,90] for this taxon sampling and the Early Bird II dataset from [91]. The combined dataset has a total of 158,368 base pairs. This data matrix is also publicly available under the same project on Morphobank [67]. Sequences included were matched to the species level where possible; otherwise sequences of taxa within the same genus or family level were used. Mitochondrial genomes were aligned using MAAFT [92]. The mitochondrial genome data was not partitioned. Jmodeltest [93] was used to find the best fit substitution model, GTR+I+G as is common in vertebrate nonpartitioned mitochondrial genome data [94]. We used the GTR + G model for the Early Bird II dataset, as in [95], but did not partition the dataset due to using a limited taxon sample.

Phylogenetic analyses

We performed unconstrained heuristic parsimony analyses of the morphological dataset in PAUP* [95] Version 4.0a, build 169 using 10,000 random taxon addition replicates per run. A molecular backbone constraint that minimally constrained Galloanseres to be monophyletic needed to be employed when Wilaru was included, as inclusion of this taxon placed Galliformes as the sister taxon of included Palaeognathae. Heuristic search algorithms were used. Tree bisection reconnection branch swapping was employed and minimum branch lengths valued at zero were collapsed, following Mayr and Clarke [88] and Musser and Cracraft [79]. No character weighting was applied. All characters were unordered. Bootstrap analyses were performed using 500 bootstrap replicates each with 10 random taxon addition replicates, as in Mayr and Clarke [88].

Within the combined data analysis, mitochondrial genomes were analyzed using a GTR + invariable gamma substitution model [96,97]. The Early Bird II dataset was analyzed using a GTR + gamma substitution model. Partitions and model settings are detailed in the available matrix files. The Mk model [98] was used for the morphological data partition within our combined data matrix. Bayesian analyses [99] of molecular and combined data were performed in MrBayes (Version 3.2.7a [100,101]) via the CIPRES portal [102]. MrBayes settings used were default, with the exception of running the analysis for 40,500,000 generations. The Bayesian analysis code as well as all matrices and output files are included in the Supplementary Data (via 10.5061/dryad.v15dv4208).

Results

Morphological results denote the results that were acquired from parsimony analysis of the morphological data, whereas the combined results comprise results of Bayesian analysis of the combined morphological and DNA data. Paakniwatavis grandei Musser and Clarke sp. nov. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:05722EDF-EDF1-4B2C-87A0-493D97DC7B3D is recovered across all analyses as the sister taxon of Anseranatidae+Anatidae (~50% bootstrap value in both morphological results, 85% clade credibility in both combined results (Figs 5, S1 and S2 in Supplementary Data via 10.5061/dryad.v15dv4208).

Across both the parsimony analysis of morphological data and the Bayesian analysis of combined data, addition of Wilaru results in differing topologies and causes nonmonophyly of Galloanseres. Due to this, the monophyly of Galloanseres was minimally constrained using a molecular backbone constraint when Wilaru was included in morphological analysis, and the following results discussed with Wilaru included comprise a monophyletic Galloanseres (S1 and S2 Figs, Supplementary Data via 10.5061/dryad.v15dv4208).. In the morphological results, Wilaru is placed as the sister taxon of Gastornis within a stem anseriform clade that also contains the Pelagornithidae (<50% bootstrap support; S2 Fig, Supplementary Data via 10.5061/dryad.v15dv4208). Addition of Wilaru also changes the relationships within the clade containing Vegavis iaai, Telmabates, Presbyornis, Conflicto, and Nettapterornis 32xford that is sister to Anatidae recovered across all analyses. With Wilaru excluded, Telmabates and Presbyornis are placed as sister taxa and form the sister clade to a group comprising Vegavis(Conflicto+Nettapterornis), whereas inclusion of Wilaru results in Vegavis being placed as the sister taxon of a clade containing Telmabates(Presbyornis(Conflicto+Nettapterornis). When Wilaru is included, bootstrap support scores rise to 99% per node within the group Presbyornis(Nettapterornis+Conflicto). Additional topology changes when Wilaru is included in the morphological analyses include Dendrocygna guttata being placed as the sister taxon of Thalassornis leuconotus and differences in the placements of several additional crown anatids (Mergus serrator, Netta rufina, Cygnus atratus and Coscoroba coscoroba; S1 and S2 Figs, Supplementary Data via 10.5061/dryad.v15dv4208).

When a Galloanserine molecular backbone constraint was not enforced, Danielsavis nazensis was recovered as the sister taxon of Anachronornis anhimops (77% bootstrap support) and placed within a group comprising Pelagornithidae(Gastornis(Anachronornis+Danielsavis) (<50% bootstrap support; S4 Fig, Supplementary Data via 10.5061/dryad.v15dv4208). This clade was placed within a polytomy containing Ichthyornis dispar and the rest of included Aves. Perplexicervix microcephalon was recovered as the sister taxon to Pan-Anseriformes (<50% bootstrap support). When Perplexicervix was excluded, Danielsavis was again placed as the sister taxon of Anachronornis (83% bootstrap support); however, the clade including these taxa, the Pelagornithidae and Gastornis collapsed into a polytomy containing these taxa (S5 Fig, Supplementary Data via 10.5061/dryad.v15dv4208). When Galloanserine molecular backbone constraints were enforced, Danielsavis, Anachronornis and Perplexicervix were recovered in a polytomy with Ichthyornis and the rest of included Aves (S6 Fig, Supplementary Data via 10.5061/dryad.v15dv4208). Exclusion of Perplexicervix did not change these results except that Anachronornis and Danielsavis were recovered as sister taxa (77% bootstrap support; S7 Fig, Supplementary Data via 10.5061/dryad.v15dv4208).

In the combined results, addition of Wilaru further defines the base of included Galliformes recovered in the morphological analyses (Gallinuloides wyomingensis(Macrocephalon maleo+Megapodius freycinet)) and collapses the base of a clade containing Telmabates, Presbyornis, Nettapterornis, Conflicto, Vegavis and Wilaru that is sister to Anatidae into a polytomy (94% clade credibility; S3 Fig, Supplementary Data via 10.5061/dryad.v15dv4208. Both combined results recovered a Presbyornis(Nettapterornis+Conflicto) clade, with posterior probability values for this clade rising when Wilaru is included. When Wilaru is excluded, Vegavis is placed as the sister taxon to a Telmabates(Presbyornis(Nettapterornis+Conflicto)) group, as in the morphological results with Wilaru included, although the clade credibility of this recovered group is low (85% or less, see Figs 5 and S3, Supplementary Data via 10.5061/dryad.v15dv4208). These drastically different placements across results from both the combined and morphological datasets are likely due to the lack of a skull known for Wilaru, although it does suggest that Wilaru may not be a presbyornithid as previously hypothesized in De Pietri et al. [58]. Due to this, we will largely focus on discussing analyses that exclude Wilaru.

Results from Bayesian analysis of the combined data matrix with Wilaru excluded are presented in Fig 5. Placement of extant taxa in the combined results are consistent with the resulting phylogram of Sun et al. [31] based on mitochondrial genomes; however, this tree included relatively few anseriform taxa used in our analysis. Combined results remain largely consistent with those of the phylogram of Sun et al. [31] based on two mitochondrial genes, which contains almost all extant anseriform taxa used in our analysis. Differences arise in the placement of several non-goose taxa within crown Anatidae. We recover a clade containing Oxyura+Stictonetta (Anas+Amazonetta(Netta(Mergus(Tadorna+Chloephaga)))) as being sister to the goose clade Cygnus+Coscoroba(Branta(Anser+Anser)), whereas Sun et al. [31] recovers a Mergus(Tadorna+Chloephaga(Netta(Anas+Amazonetta))) group that is sister to Oxyura+the goose clade. Differences between these analyses are likely due to our inclusion of morphological data, mitochondrial genomes for more taxa and nuclear genes. Additionally, the Sun et al. [31] analysis did not include Stictonetta, Coscoroba, or Thalassornis, and our analysis did not include several genera included in Sun et al. [31] (eg. Neochen, Melanitta, Aythya and more).

Within the combined results (Fig 5), clade credibility values of all nodes were 94% or higher with several exceptions. Exceptions comprise placement of Asteriornis maastrichtensis as the sister taxon of a Tinamidae+Lithornithidae clade (54%), placement of Crax as the sister taxon of a Lophura+Gallus gallus sister group (69%), placement of Paakniwatavis grandei as the sister taxon to Anseranas semipalmata+(a fossil clade+crown Anatidae) (85%), placement of Anseranas as the sister taxon to a a clade that contains extinct taxa and crown Anatidae (89%), placement of Telmabates as the sister taxon to Prebyornis(Conflicto+Nettapterornis) (59%), placement of Presbyornis (55%), placement of Nettapterornis as the sister taxon of Conflicto (88%), and placement of Netta rufina as the sister taxon to a clade containing Mergus(Tadorna+Chloephaga) (85%).

The strict consensus tree from analysis of morphological data is broadly congruent with combined results but presents alternative hypotheses for the placement of several extinct and extant taxa within Pan-Anatidae, the name we are giving to the clade that includes crown Anatidae and the clade of extinct taxa that was placed as the sister taxon to crown Anatidae across all analyses (S1 Fig, Supplementary Data via 10.5061/dryad.v15dv4208). Unconstrained parsimony analysis of morphological data resulted in one most parsimonious tree (MPT) of 2,821 steps (CI = 0.291, RI = 0.580, RC = 0.169, HI = 0.709). Morphological analysis recovers a clade containing Telmabates+Presbyornis(Vegavis(Conflicto+Nettapterornis)) as the sister taxon to Anatidae. This clade containing the same taxa is structured as follows within the combined data results: Vegavis(Telmabates(Presbyornis(Conflicto+Nettapterornis))). The positions of several extant anatids differ across the analyses as well. In the morphological results, Dendrocygna is sister to Thalassiornis+crown Anatidae, whereas Dendrocygna and Thalassiornis are sister taxa in the combined data results. Additional differences within the morphological results comprise the placements of Netta, Oxyura, Stictonetta, the Chloephaga+Tadorna sister group, and Mergus. Cygnus and Coscoroba are additionally no longer sister taxa in the morphological results.

Analysis of the combined dataset and morphology only dataset resultin Gastornis (Pelagornis+Protodontopteryx) as a stem anseriform clade (<50% bootstrap support, 99% clade credibility;(Figs 5 and S3, Supplementary Data via 10.5061/dryad.v15dv4208). Both datasets also recover a clade containing Telmabates, Presbyornis, Vegavis, Conflicto, and Nettapterornis (<50% bootstrap support, 95% clade credibility) as the sister taxon of Anatidae. Recovery of this clade containing solely extinct taxa may be real or discovered to be a paraphyletic assemblage; all synapomorphies for this clade exhibited CI≤0.5 in the morphological results and CI≤0.5 in the combined data results (see Supplementary Data via 10.5061/dryad.v15dv4208).

Ancestral state reconstruction using the combined dataset indicates that P. grandei likely preferred an aquatic or semi-aquatic environment, was either not specialized for aquatic feeding modes (hereafter referred to as a “non-swimmer”) or was a surface swimmer, was primarily herbivorous, was a grazer, had some form of rhamphothecal lamellae, had a pedal digit III that was subequal to or longer than that of the tarsometatarsus, had an ossified pessulus of the syrinx, and did not have asymmetry at the tracheobronchial juncture of the syrinx. Status of pedal webbing could not be reconstructed for P. grandei; however, the anatomy and skeletal proportions of P. grandei suggest that it was an aquatic surface swimmer. This is especially likely as P. grandei has a pedal digit III that is longer than the tarsometatarsus, indicating that this taxon likely was a surface swimmer and led an aquatic or semi-aquatic lifestyle [103]. Optimizations for the Anseriformes total group including stem-Anseriformes indicate that this clade preferred either a terrestrial or aquatic habitat, were non-swimmers, were omnivorous or carnivorous, were mixed feeders or grazers, did not have pedal webbing, had a pedal digit III was shorter than the length of the tarsometatarsus, had an ossified pessulus, and had no asymmetry at the tracheobronchial juncture. The status of rhamphothecal lamellae could not be reconstructed for this clade. Optimizations for crown Anseriformes were identical to those for total group Anseriformes with the exception of crown Anseriformes preferring an aquatic or semiaquatic habitat, being primarily herbivorous, having a form of rhamphothecal lamellae, and being grazers. Optimizations for Anatidae and Pan-Anatidae indicate that they originally preferred an aquatic or semiaquatic habitat, were surface swimmers, were primarily herbivorous, had full rhamphothecal lamellae present, were grazers, possessed pedal webbing, had a pedal digit III was subequal in length or longer than the tarsometatarsus, had an ossified pessulus, and had no asymmetry at the tracheobronchial juncture. Optimizations for crown anatids were identical with the exception of optimizations suggesting that they preferred aquatic environments only.

Ancestral state reconstruction using the morphological data provided identical results for P. grandei. Status of pedal webbing again could not be reconstructed for P. grandei. Optimizations for total group Anseriformes were identical to those of the combined data analysis. Again, the status of rhamphothecal lamellae could not be reconstructed for this clade. Optimizations for crown Anseriformes remained identical. Optimizations for Anatidae and Pan-Anatidae remained identical with the exception of asymmetry at the tracheobronchial junction being unable to be reconstructed. Optimizations for crown Anatidae were identical to those recovered using the combined data results, with the exception of asymmetry at the tracheobronchial junction being unable to be reconstructed.

Discussion

We recover Paakniwatavis grandei as the sister taxon to Anseranatidae across all analyses, regardless of taxon sampling. This placement is consistent with the unique combination of anhimid-like and anseranatid-like morphologies displayed by the taxon as well as its aquatic morphologies. A Gastornis+Pelagornithidae group was also recovered across all analyses as the sister taxon of crown Anseriformes, and a clade containing Vegavis iaai, Presbyornis, Telmabates, Conflicto, and Nettapterornis was recovered as the sister taxon of crown Anatidae across all analyses (called Pan-Anatidae here). Asteriornis maastrichtensis Field et al. 2020 is recovered as a stem Galloanserine in the morphology only topology (<50% bootstrap support), but is the sister taxon to a Tinamidae+Lithornithidae clade within the combined results (54% clade credibility).

Our results for Gastornis and the Pelagornithidae are consistent with those of Bourdon [24], in which Pelagornithidae are the sister taxon of Anseriformes; however, this study did not recover a monophyletic Galloanseres. Field et al. [11] recovered the Pelagornithidae either as the sister taxon to an Anseriformes(Conflicto+Nettapterornis) group or within a polytomy containing Neoaves and Galloanseres. Mayr [25] recovered Pelagornithidae as the sister taxon to a Sylviornithidae(Dromornithidae(Galloanseres))) group, and Mayr et al. [51] recovered a polytomy comprising Pelagornithidae, Galloanseres and Neoaves. Using the dataset of Field et al. [11], Houde et al. [44] recovered Pelagornithidae as the sister taxon to a small sample of four neoavian species using Bayesian analysis; however, when parsimony analysis was used on the same dataset Galloanseres is nonmonophyletic (see Supplement of [44]), so much so that Galliformes are nested within Palaeognathae and the Pelagornithidae are sister to a polytomy containing the four included neoavian species and Anseriformes (including Pan-Anatidae). This level of non-monophyly calls the legitimacy of the Field et al. [11] dataset into question and indicates that character revision and/or revision of the scorings of this dataset are necessary before use in future studies.

Placement of Presbyornis, Nettapterornis, and Vegavis within a clade that is sister to Anatidae is consistent with the results of Ericson [14], Livezey [13], and Elzanowski and Stidham [52] for Presbyornis and both Vegavis and Presbyornis in the Livezey [13] matrix (see also Clarke et al. [23]). Worthy et al. [27] recovered Presbyornis and Wilaru as either the sister group of Anseranas+Anatidae or Anseranas, and recover Vegavis as either the sister taxon of the anseriform-like Gastornithiformes (eg. Gastornis) or the sister taxon to Anseriformes. Tambussi et al. [28], using the Worthy et al. [27] data matrix, similarly recover Presbyornis, Wilaru, Nettapterornis and Conflicto as stem Anseriformes and place Vegavis as the sister taxon of Gastornithiformes within stem Anseriformes. Field et al. [11] recover Wilaru, Presbyornis, Conflicto, and Nettapterornis as stem Anseriformes outside Anhimidae+Anatidae or Wilaru and Presbyornis as the sister group of Anseranas. Field et al [11] also recovered Vegavis as a stem Galloanserine or Neoavian taxon (it remains in an unresolved polytomy) or as a stem Neornithine, and place Asteriornis as a stem Galloanserine or stem galliform. Torres et al. [104] places Conflicto and Vegavis within a polytomy containing Anatidae and recovers Asteriornis as the sister taxon of a Lithornis+tinamou clade.

Anachronornis anhimops and Danielsavis nazensis were placed as sister taxa across almost all morphology only analyses (S4, S5 and S7 Figs, Supplementary Data via 10.5061/dryad.v15dv4208), and were placed within a clade containing Gastornis gigantea and the Pelagornithidae in results where Wilaru was excluded and Galloanserine molecular backbone constraints not enforced (S4 and S5 Figs, Supplementary Data via 10.5061/dryad.v15dv4208). Perplexicervix microcephalon was recovered as the sister taxon to Pan-Anseriformes in results where Wilaru was excluded and Galloanserine molecular backbone constraints not enforced (S4 Fig, Supplementary Data via 10.5061/dryad.v15dv4208). Houde et al [44] recover Anachronornis and Danielsavis as stem Anseriformes using both parsimony analysis and Bayesian analysis with low support. When excluding Danielsavis from the employed datasets, Houde et al. [44] place Anachronornis as either a stem anseriform, stem anhimid, stem anseranatid, or within a polytomy containing other Anseriformes and/or stem Anseriformes depending on the dataset and analysis method used. Thus the phylogenetic placement of both extinct taxa remains tenuous at best and will require further study.

Perplexicervix has not been included in any previously published phylogenetic analysis. Perplexicervix was originally thought to be anseriform [45]; however, Mayr et al. [60] remarked on a few similarities between Perplexicervix and Otididae but did not perform phylogenetic analysis that included this taxon or identify unambiguous character evidence to support this hypothesis. Like Galloanserines, Perplexicervix exhibits basipterygoid processes, which are absent in most of Neoaves. Combined data results yielded 7 unambiguous and 3 ambiguous optimized synapomorphies of the quadrate, coracoid, scapula, humerus, femur, tibiotarsus, tarsometatarsus, and pedal phalanges (two with CI = 1) that support placement of P. grandei within Anseriformes. Within the quadrate, the ventral apex of the crista tympanica terminates within the ventral half of the quadrate (character 172: state 2, ambiguous). The labrum externa along the lateral angle of the sternal coracoid is ventrocranially angled (416:2, unambiguous). Within the scapula, the acromion process is truncate and does not reach cranially beyond the articular faces of the head (437:1, ambiguous). The tuberculum ventral and the crista along the proximal margin of the fossa pneumotricipitalis are domed and distally prominent, overhanging the fossa pneumotricipitalis (456:2, unambiguous, CI = 1). The length of the femur is approximately one half the length of the tibiotarsus (597:1, unambiguous). The distal opening of the pons supratendineus of the tibiotarsus is centered along the midline (653:3, unambiguous). Within the tarsometatarsus the medial margin of the medial cotyle is exceptionally projected proximally and crista-like (658:2, unambiguous, CI = 1), the lateral cotyle is flattened or only slightly concave (662:2, ambiguous), and the hypotarsal eminence is proximally prominent (664:2, unambiguous). Within the pedal phalanges, pedal phalanx II: digit 2 is slightly more elongate than III:2 (706:2, unambiguous).

Seven unambiguous and three ambiguous optimized synapomorphies of the quadrate, mandible, furcula, scapula, carpometacarpus, tarsometatarsus and pedal phalanges (one with CI = 1) support placement of P. grandei as a sister taxon to the clade (Anseranatidae+Anatidae). Within the quadrate, the crista tympanica is present and exhibits an extremely prominent crista (171:3, unambiguous), and the caudal face of the otic process is deeply concave (176:2, unambiguous). Within the mandible, the medial portion of the ramus caudal to the coronoid process (or homologous site) is extremely deep and concave (244:2, unambiguous), and a true retroarticular process is present and exceptionally tapered throughout (256:2, ambiguous). The width of the lateral diameter of the furcular ramus is larger than that at the symphysis (436:3, ambiguous), and the scapula is shorter than the humerus in length (449:1, unambiguous). Within the carpometacarpus, the proximal terminus of the dorsal rim of the trochlea carpalis is strongly angular and proximally elongated (514:2, unambiguous). Within the tarsometatarsus, the distal-most terminus(i) of medial crest(s) are much more distally extensive and the lateral crista(e) are proximodistally truncate, about 1/2-2/3 proximodistal length of the medial crista (669:1, unambiguous, CI = 1). The proximal portion of the sulcus extensorius medial to the dorsal foramina vascularia proximalia is present and deeply excavated (680:2, ambiguous). Within the pedal phalanges, phalanx III is longer than the tarsometatarsus (719:1, unambiguous).

Our phylogenetic placements of the abovementioned extinct taxa suggests that extinct anseriform diversity is likely much more vast than previously known and remains poorly understood. Likely plesiomorphic traits shared by these taxa are additionally necessary to further explore and understand to better resolve the relationships and evolutionary histories of these taxa, especially as new relevant fossils are discovered. Analysis of the Cretaceous ornithurine Janavis finalidens [105] and recent evidence on the ichthyornithine palatine [104] similarly indicate that reevaluation of purported galloanseran affinities of early Cenozoic groups is necessary, especially within the Pelagornithidae. Recovery of additional, more complete and better preserved anseriform-like fossils is ultimately necessary to more robustly resolve the phylogenetic placement of these important taxa. Adding Neoaves to the dataset is also important in future iterations of the Musser and Cracraft [79] dataset. Despite this, consistent results across several analyses using different data types and methods suggest that most placements of the included taxa are fairly robust. P. grandei represents a unique ecology for the Green River Formation, and this new fossil along with this new dataset and re-evaluation of Presbyornis material thus begins to elucidate several critical issues in anseriform evolution.

Ancestral state reconstruction across all analyses suggests the evolution of a combination of terrestrial and semi-aquatic traits at the base of Anseriformes, with crown Anseriformes exhibiting a shift toward more aquatic traits such as preferring an aquatic or semiaquatic habitat, being primarily herbivorous, having a form of rhamphothecal lamellae, and being grazers (Fig 5). This is inconsistent with the assertion that Anseriformes were ancestrally terrestrial as suggested by Olson and Feduccia [22], Ericson [14], and Livezey [13]. The placement of P. grandei and its influence on the optimization of these reconstructions suggests aquatic or semi-aquatic ancestry of Anseriformes, especially combined with a reduced form of rhamphothecal lamellae present in extant Anhimidae [22].

The question of how anseriform beak morphology and filter feeding evolved remains an open one. Either a narrower, “goose-like” beak was ancestral for Anseriformes, or this narrower beak evolved several times within Anseriformes [19]. The “goose-like” beak is associated with increased leaf consumption, decreased invertebrate consumption, and an increase in the mechanical advantage of the beak that allows for more effective cropping of plants [19], whereas “duck-like” beaks are associated with increased filter feeding and consumption of invertebrates. We take this classification of a “goose-like” beak a step further in the broader context of both stem and crown Anseriformes: We first identify whether the rostrum is mediolaterally wider than the width of the paroccipital processes (indicating an anseranatid-like beak; character 3) and, if so, whether it is anteriorly tapered and narrowed further (a “goose-like” beak; character 4: state 1), or whether it remains subequal in width (a “duck-like” beak; 4:2). P. grandei is the only Paleogene anseriform currently known to present a narrow, anhimid-like beak other than the Pelagornithidae, Danielsavis and Anachronornis. Its beak is mediolaterally narrower than the width of its paroccipital processes, as in extant Anhimidae. Chaunoides and Telmabates have no known preserved skull and Vegavis has no known preserved rostrum or braincase, while other Paleogene fossils with a beak preserved such as Presbyornis, Nettapterornis and Conflicto all present an anseranatid-like beak based on currently known remains. All of our analyses posit the first appearance of a beak that is mediolaterally wider than the width of the paroccipital processes as ancestral to the node containing Anseranas semipalmata. It would have been an anteriorly tapered, “goose-like” beak like that of the extant Anhmidae or Anseranas (Fig 5). Across all analyses, ancestral state reconstruction indicates that this “goose-like” beak is ancestral to Anseranatidae+Anatidae. All analyses indicate that anteriorly wider “duck-like” beaks evolve at least twice: once after the divergence of Anseranas in taxa closer to Anatidae (present in Presbyornis and Nettapterornis), and once within crown Anatidae (see Fig 5 and Supplementary Data via 10.5061/dryad.v15dv4208). These results contradict those of Olsen [19], who found that a duck-like beak was ancestral for most Anatidae, followed by multiple transitions toward a goose-like beak; however, this study performed ancestral state reconstruction using a phylomorphospace of beak curvature measurements, beak function metrics, and quantified diet data for a smaller sample of anseriform taxa that included only two extinct taxa, Presbyornis and the recently extinct moa-nalo Thambetochen chauliodous Olson and Wetmore [106] (see also Olson and James [107]). More robust placement of Anachronornis and Danielsavis in future studies will be critical to better understanding anseriform ancestral state reconstructions and the evolution of beak morphology.

At the same time, our results are consistent with the results of Olsen [19] in that we find rhamphothecal lamellae to have been present ancestrally for crown Anseriformes and Anatidae (including within both the stem and crown lineages of these groups), indicating that herbivory and/or filter feeding was ancestral for these clades. This again contradicts the hypothesis that Anseriformes were ancestrally terrestrial and would explain the presence of reduced rhamphothecal lamellae in extant Anhimidae [22]. Anhimidae represent the only known example of rhamphothecal lamellae being present without pedal webbing in extant birds; however, similar lamellae-like ridges have been found in Ornithomimus [108,109], Gallimimus, chelonians, hadrosaurs [109] and an edentulous ceratosaur [110]. A partial correlation between the presence of these ridges and exclusively herbivorous diet among terrestrial chelonians has been found [111,112], suggesting that more prominent ridges were present when more coarse vegetation was eaten. Studies on the jaw mechanics, locomotion and gut contents of hadrosaurs have similarly demonstrated that they were obligate terrestrial herbivores that used their beak for cropping through vegetation [113,114]. If our ancestral state reconstructions for crown Anseriformes are correct, lamellae coevolved with a shift toward herbivory and grazing along with the preference for a more aquatic habitat despite a lack of pedal webbing. Based on the available evidence and our results, some form of rhamphothecal lamellae was ancestral to crown Anseriformes and could have developed due to aquatic grazing, then remained (or became reduced) within extant Anhimidae while developing further within more derived crown anseriform taxa. Webbing then was maximally ancestral to P. grandei, and minimally was ancestral to Anseranas. Our results thus suggest that crown Anseriformes were maximally ancestrally aquatic or semi-aquatic, and fully aquatic ancestral to crown Anseranatidae. In general our results suggest a trend within Anseriformes toward aquatic grazing and the anseranatid “goose-like” beak to obtain an herbivorous (increased leaf and root consumption) diet, with at least two evolutions of a “duck-like” beak associated with increased filter feeding and invertebrates obtained by this feeding mode at least once within Pan-Anatidae and once within Anatidae [115,116]. If these placements and ancestral state reconstructions are correct, this would add to mounting support that feeding ecology has acted as the primary selective force in waterfowl beak shape diversification [19].

Further elucidation of anseriform behavioral evolution is indicated in ancestral state reconstruction of syringeal characters. Ancestral state reconstruction within the combined results indicates that P. grandei, Anseriformes (inclusive and exclusive of stem Anseriformes) and anatids (inclusive and exclusive of the clade containing extinct taxa that was placed as the sister to Anatidae) had an ossified pessulus of the syrinx, a derived neognath bird feature that has been proposed to anchor enlarged vocal folds or labia [117], consistent with the results of Clarke et al. [42]. These taxa also were indicated to ancestrally not possess asymmetry at the tracheobronchial juncture of the syrinx. Ancestral reconstruction within the morphological results is identical with the exception of ambiguity within Pan- and crown Anatidae regarding asymmetry at the tracheobronchial juncture. Both results indicate that asymmetry at the tracheobronchial juncture must have evolved at least once within Anseranatidae+Anatidae. This is somewhat consistent with Clarke et al. [42]; however, while Clarke et al. [42] considered a single origin in Anatidae likely, our results may suggest more gains and losses within this Anseranatidae+Anatidae clade. Further study and coding of extant syrinx asymmetry is necessary as previous descriptions and figures of extant syrinxes largely focus on pronounced asymmetrical bullae in some male anseriform taxa rather than the more subtle asymmetry of the rings found in females, and the large range of variation across differing taxa and sexes within Anseriformes is not well understood [20,117]. Better understanding asymmetry in extant taxa has important implications for extinct taxa as well; for example, the subtle asymmetry present in Vegavis may suggest that this taxon exhibited sexual dimorphism within the syrinx, as in some extant Anatidae. Asymmetry is an important trait to further study as it is correlated with the presence of a dual sound source and the presence of labia [42,117]. Recovery of further fossils that include syrinxes and further study of extant syrinx anatomy and function in extant birds is thus necessary to understand the evolution of this organ.

All analyses recover the K-Pg taxa Vegavis, Nettapterornis, Conflicto, Presbyornis and Telmabates within a clade that is the sister taxon to Anatidae. Within the combined data results, six unambiguous and 10 ambiguous synapomorphies (CI < 1) were recovered for this clade that united three or more of these taxa within the axial skeleton and hindlimbs (see Supplementary Data via 10.5061/dryad.v15dv4208). Although several appear to be plesiomorphic, these characters may represent evolutionary and biological/ecological significance pending recovery of key elements from taxa such as Vegavis, Telmabates and Conflicto.

P. grandei exhibits non-heterocoelous vertebrae. Although this character was not optimized as a synapomorphy for this clade, Nettapterornis, Telmabates, Presbyornis, and the Neogene Dromornithidae have amphicoelous thoracic vertebrae [14,56,118], whereas Vegavis, Pelagornithidae and gastornithids have heterocoelous thoracic vertebrae [23,42]. Although it cannot be discerned which non-heterocoelous form the vertebrae of P. grandei possess due to taphonomic distortion, it is likely that P. grandei possessed amphicoelous vertebrae as well. Amphicoelous thoracic vertebrae are plesiomorphic within Avialae but also present in well-nested neoavian clade Charadriiformes [14,56,88,118]. Opisthocoelous thoracic vertebrae are only known within Neoaves [79,88,89], and amphiplatyan and procoelous vertebrae are only known in non-avian dinosaurs [89].

Further study on the function of amphicoelous vertebrae in the context of avian evolution and ecology is needed, especially since birds possess a unique dorsal intervertebral joint [119]; however, the literature on this in fishes and crocodylomorphs suggests that amphicoelous vertebrae provide a more rigid spine [120122] that can withstand increased stress without deformation that may be caused by powerful movements of musculature [120,121], allowing for rapid flexure of the spine. Amphicoelous vertebrae have evolved several times in sharks, dipnoans, bony ganoids and teleosts, associating their appearance with improved speed of motion [120]. Amphicoelous vertebrae are also associated with aquatic environments, as transitions from amphicoelous to platycoelous vertebrae has been hypothesized to represent a transition from aquatic to terrestrial environments [123].

Results further clarify the complex picture of avian evolution around the K-T boundary, indicating that several lineages within Anseriformes with a variety of ecologies not represented in the crown were present by the latest Cretaceous and into the early Paleogene. P. grandei represents an early Eocene lacustrine taxon that was likely aquatic, swam and used its narrow bill in aquatic grazing or mixed feeding. The Cretaceous-early Paleogene Nettapterornis and Presbyornis were aquatic taxa that likely filter fed on a more invertebrate-heavy diet within both marine and marine and lacustrine environments, respectively [19]. The early Eocene Telmabates may have shared a similar ecology to Presbyornis given its amphicoelous thoracic vertebrae and evidence that the Casamayor formation in which it was found is known to be a marine-fluvial transition zone [124]. Other Cretaceous and Paleogene material has been referred to Presbyornis from more fluvial as well as marine settings possibly suggesting a cosmopolitan, flexible habitus [125128]. At the same time the Cretaceous Vegavis, with heterocoelous thoracic vertebrae, was present in a near shore marine environment with unknown diet, and the Cretaceous Conflicto was present within a near shore marine/transitory estuarine environment, again with unknown diet and locomotion due to missing data [28]. In addition to this array of taxa and ecologies, the specialized Cretaceous-Paleogene marine, piscivorous pseudodontorns and the giant terrestrial Paleogene gastornithids were present within the stem anseriform lineage. If Vegavis and Conflicto are also found to have had omnivorous, mixed and/or piscivorous diets, a proliferation of Cretaceous-early Paleogene non-herbivorous stem and crown Anseriformes may have arisen. Proposed significant loss of plant cover due to global cooling and the K-T impact event [129134] could suggest a short but strong selective regime favoring mixed and non-herbivore specialists. Fossil evidence suggests that early Anseriformes were diversifying rapidly since at least the late Cretaceous and were already widespread within the same time frame, as the early Eocene Telmabates was found in Patagonia and Paleocene and Eocene Presbyornis material has been recovered from North America, Europe and Mongolia [33,126128].

An approximate mean body mass estimate for P. grandei is 304g based on the published allometric equation using femoral length from Field et al. [81]. This body mass level is quite small; it is most comparable to the mass of many Anas (within the 300s range). Many other anatids are generally larger (which typically range from 600-over 1,000g) [135]. Its body mass is estimated to be less than half that of Presbyornis and Telmabates (882g and 1423g, respectively). This is consistent with recent evidence that correlation between herbivory and body mass is not significant when accounting for phylogeny [18].

Further analysis of these Paleogene anseriform fossils in the context of broader extinct taxon sampling, especially in the context of extinct anseriform-like taxa, is necessary to further evidence placement of P. grandei and other Paleogene anseriform-like taxa and to gain more robust insight into ancestral states; however, P. grandei represents a key taxon, a unique ecology within known Anseriformes and the Green River Formation, and a potential calibration point for anseranatids. Other included extinct taxa also represent potential calibration points that would be valuable for stem Anseriformes, Anhimidae and Pan-Anatidae. Recovery of additional fossils and further phylogenetic analyses (especially of taxa such as Chaunoides and Wilaru) are preferable to confirm these relationships, further reveal the ecological and behavioral evolution and biogeography of Anseriformes, and better elucidate our understanding of avian evolution.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Strict consensus trees recovered through parsimony analysis of morphological data.

Strict consensus tree of 1 MPT of 2,821 steps recovered based on morphological data with Wilaru excluded (CI = 0.291, RI = 0.580, RC = 0.169, HI = 0.709). Bootstrap support values greater than 50% are denoted above branches. Transitions are mapped for selected key nodes based on ancestral state reconstruction. Transitions are only mapped where ancestral state reconstruction is definitive.

(JPG)

pone.0278737.s001.jpg (216.5KB, jpg)
S2 Fig. Strict consensus tree of Strict consensus tree of 1 MPT of 2,928 steps recovered based on morphological data with Wilaru included (CI = 0.281, RI = 0.561, RC = 0.158, HI = 0.719).

Bootstrap support values greater than 50% are denoted above branches. Transitions are mapped for selected key nodes based on ancestral state reconstruction. Transitions are only mapped where ancestral state reconstruction is definitive.

(JPG)

pone.0278737.s002.jpg (212.5KB, jpg)
S3 Fig. Resulting consensus tree from Bayesian analysis of 719 morphological characters and 158,368 base pairs with Wilaru included (A) and excluded (B).

Clade credibility values greater than 50% are annotated above branches. Transitions are mapped for selected key nodes based on ancestral state reconstruction. Transitions are only mapped where ancestral state reconstruction is definitive. Extinct taxa are delimited with daggers.

(TIF)

S4 Fig. Strict consensus tree of 3 MPTs of 2,898 steps recovered based on morphological data.

Galloanserine molecular backbone constraints were not used. Wilaru was excluded and Anachronornis, Danielsavis (including specimen NMS.Z.2021.40.2) and Perplexicervix were included (CI = 0.288, RI = 0.584, RC = 0.168, HI = 0.712).

(JPG)

pone.0278737.s004.jpg (96.5KB, jpg)
S5 Fig. Strict consensus tree of 4 MPTs of 2,897 steps recovered based on morphological data.

Galloanserine molecular backbone constraints were not used. Wilaru and Perplexicervix were excluded and Anachronornis and Danielsavis (including specimen NMS.Z.2021.40.2) were included (CI = 0.288, RI = 0.579, RC = 0.167, HI = 0.712).

(JPG)

pone.0278737.s005.jpg (102.5KB, jpg)
S6 Fig. Strict consensus tree of 27 MPTs of 2,989 steps recovered based on morphological data.

Galloanserine molecular backbone constraints were used. Wilaru was excluded and Anachronornis, Danielsavis (including specimen NMS.Z.2021.40.2) and Perplexicervix were included (CI = 0.279, RI = 0.565, RC = 0.158, HI = 0.721).

(JPG)

pone.0278737.s006.jpg (106.4KB, jpg)
S7 Fig. Strict consensus tree of 1 MPT of 2,986 steps recovered based on morphological data.

Galloanserine molecular backbone constraints were used. Wilaru and Perplexicervix were excluded and Anachronornis and Danielsavis (including specimen NMS.Z.2021.40.2) were included (CI = 0.280, RI = 0.561, RC = 0.157, HI = 0.720).

(JPG)

pone.0278737.s007.jpg (104.6KB, jpg)
S1 Appendix

(DOCX)

pone.0278737.s008.docx (194.8KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

We thank all of the staff of FMNH, especially Lance Grande, Jingmai O’Connor, William Simpson, Adrienne Stroup, Shannon Hackett, John Bates, and Ben Marks for specimen access and valuable discussion. We thank April Neander for scanning the specimen, and Matthew Colbert for aid in scan visualization and segmentation. We thank Helen James, Christopher Milensky, Brian Schmidt and Mark Florence of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History for access to the Ornithology and Vertebrate Paleontology collections. We thank Joel Cracraft, Paul Sweet, Mark Norell, Ruth O’Leary and Carl Mehling of AMNH for access to the Ornithology and Vertebrate Paleontology Collections. We additionally thank Kenneth Bader, Matthew Brown, and Christopher Sagebiel for access to additional TMM collections and their aid in working with AMNH loans. Finally, we thank Joel Cracraft, Zhiheng Li, Melissa Kemp, Christopher Bell, Daniel Field, Daniel Ksepka and Christopher Torres for valuable discussion.

Data Availability

CT slices have been deposited on DRYAD under the following DOI: 10.5061/dryad.v15dv4208. All other Supplementary Data is available on Morphobank under Project 4001 at the following link: http://morphobank.org/permalink/?P4001.

Funding Statement

This project was supported by a National Science Foundation GRFP (https://www.nsfgrfp.org/) award (to G.M., grant number DGE-16-4486), an Ornithology Collections Study Grant from the American Museum of Natural History (https://www.amnh.org/research/vertebrate-zoology/ornithology ;to G.M., 2019) and the Jackson School of Geosciences (https://www.jsg.utexas.edu/ ;G.M. and J.A.C). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Cope P. On the geologic age of the vertebrate fauna of the Eocene of New Mexico. Proc Acad Nat Sci Phila.1876; 28: 63–66. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Hébert M. Note sur le fémur du Gastornis parisiensis. Mallet-Bachelier; 1855.
  • 3.Prévost C. Nouveaux documents sur le gisement du Gastornis parisiensis et considerations generals sur les vestiges laisses par des oiseaux dans les terrains des divers ages. C R Acad Sci. 1855; 40: 616–619. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Mlíkovský J. 2002. Cenozoic Birds of the World, Part 1: Europe. Praha: Ninox Press; 2002.
  • 5.Mayr G. Paleogene Fossil Birds. 2nd Ed. Springer International Publishing; 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Witmer LM, Rose KD. Biomechanics of the jaw apparatus of the gigantic Eocene bird Diatryma: implications for diet and mode of life. Paleobiology 1991; 17(2): 95–120. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Andors AV. Reappraisal of the Eocene groundbird Diatryma (Aves: Anserimorphae). In: Campbell Jr KE, editor. Papers in Avian Paleontology Honoring Pierce Brodkorb. Los Angeles (CA): Science Series of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County No. 3; 1992. p. 109–125.
  • 8.Angst D, Lécuyer C, Amiot R, Buffetaut E, Fourel F, Martineau F et al. Isotopic and anatomical evidence of an herbivorous diet in the early Tertiary giant bird Gastornis. Implications for the structure of Paleocene terrestrial ecosystems. Naturwissenschaften 2–14; 101: 313–322. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Mayr G, Rubilar-Rogers D. Osteology of a new giant bony-toothed bird from the Miocene of Chile, with a revision of the taxonomy of Neogene Pelagornithidae. J Vertebr Paleontol. 2010; 30: 1313–1330. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ksepka D. Flight performance of the largest volant bird. PNAS. 2014; 111(29): 10624–10629. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1320297111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Field DJ, Benito J, Chen A, Jagt JWM, Ksepka DT. Late Cretaceous neornithine from Europe illuminates the origin of crown birds. Nature. 2020; 579: 397–401. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Wetmore A. Fossil birds from the Green River Deposits of Eastern Utah. Ann Carnegie Mus. 1926; 16: 391–402. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Livezey BC. A phylogenetic analysis of basal Anseriformes, the fossil Presbyornis, and the interordinal relationships of waterfowl. Zool J Linn Soc. 1997; 121: 361–428. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ericson Per. GP. Systematic relationships of the palaeogene family Presbyornithidae (Aves: Anseriformes). Zool J Linn Soc. 1997; 121: 429–483. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Delacour J, Mayr E. The Waterfowl of the World. London: Country Life Limited; 1945. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Livezey BC. A phylogenetic analysis of recent anseriform genera using morphological characters. Auk. 1986; 103: 737–754. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Li Z, Clarke JA. The craniolingual morphology of waterfowl (Aves, Anseriformes) and its relationship with feeding mode through contrast-enhanced x-ray computed tomography and 2D morphometrics. Evol Biol. 2015; 43: 12–25. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Olsen AM. Exceptional avian herbivores: multiple transitions toward herbivory in the bird order Anseriformes and its correlation with body mass. Ecol Evol. 2015; 5(21): 5016–5032. doi: 10.1002/ece3.1787 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Olsen AM. Feeding ecology is the primary driver of beak shape diversification in waterfowl. Funct Ecol. 2017; 31: 1985–1999. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Johnsgard PA. Evolutionary trends in the behavior and morphology of the Anatidae. Wildfowl Trust Ann Rep. 1962; 13: 130–148. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Todd FS. Waterfowl: ducks, geese and swans of the world. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich; 1979. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Olson SL, Feduccia A. Presbyornis and the origin of the Anseriformes (Aves: Charadrimorphae). Smithson Contrib to Zool. 1980; 323: 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Clarke JA, Tambussi CP, Noriega JI, Erickson GM, Ketcham RA. Definitive fossil evidence for the extant avian radiation in the Cretaceous. Nature. 2005; 433: 305–308. doi: 10.1038/nature03150 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Bourdon E. Osteological evidence for sister group relationship between pseudo-toothed birds (Aves: Odontopterygiformes) and waterfowls (Anseriformes). Naturwissenschaften. 2005; 92: 586–591. doi: 10.1007/s00114-005-0047-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Mayr G. Cenozoic mystery birds—on the phylogenetic affinities of bony-toothed birds (Pelagornithidae). Zool. Scr. 2011; 40: 448–467. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Louchart A, Sire JY, Mourer-Chauvire C, Geraads D, Viriot L, de Buffrenil V. Structure and growth pattern of pseudoteeth in Pelagornis mauretanicus (Aves, Odontopterygiformes, Pelagornithidae). PLoS One. 2013; 8: e80372. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0080372 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Worthy TH., Degrange FJ, Handley WD, Lee MSY. The evolution of giant flightless birds and novel phylogenetic relationships for extinct fowl (Aves, Galloanseres). R Soc Open Sci. 2017; 4: 170975. doi: 10.1098/rsos.170975 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Tambussi CP, Degrange FJ, de Mendoza RS, Sferco E, Santillana S. A stem anseriform from the early Palaeocene of Antarctica provides new key evidence in the early evolution of waterfowl. Zool J Linn. 2019; SocXX: 1–28. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Sraml M, Christidis L, Easteal S, Horn P, Collet C. Molecular relationships within Australasian waterfowl (Anseriformes). Aust J Zool. 1996; 44: 47–58. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Donne-Goussé C, Laudet V, Hänni C. A molecular phylogeny of Anseriformes based on mitochondrial DNA analysis. Mol Phylogenet and Evol. 2002; 23: 339–356. doi: 10.1016/s1055-7903(02)00019-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Sun Z, Pan T, Hu C, Sun L, Ding H, Wang H, et al. Rapid and recent diversification patterns in Anseriformes birds: inferred from molecular phylogeny and diversification analyses. PLoS One. 2017; 12(9): e0184529. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184529 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Grande L. The Lost World of Fossil Lake: Snapshots from Deep Time. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Olson SL, Matsuoka H. New specimens of the early Eocene frigatebird Limnofregata (Pelecaniformes: Fregatidae), with the description of a new species. Zootaxa. 2005; 1046: 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Stidham TA. A new species of Limnofregata (Pelecaniformes: Fregatidae) from the Early Eocene Wasatch Formation of Wyoming: implications for palaeoecology and palaeobiology. Palaeontology. 2015; 58: 239–249. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Olson SL. An early Eocene Oilbird from the Green River Formation of Wyoming (Caprimulgiformes: Steatornithidae). Documents des Laboratoires de Géologie de Lyon. 1987; 99: 57–69. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Smith NA, Clarke JA. A new species of Threskiornithidae-like bird (Aves, Ciconiiformes) from the Green River Formation (Eocene) of Wyoming. J Vertebr Paleontol. 2013; 33: 363–381. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Eastman CR. New fossil bird and fish remains from the Middle Eocene of Wyoming. Geol Mag. 1900; decade 4(7): 54–58. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Field DJ Hsiang AY. A North American stem turaco, and the complex biogeographic history of modern birds. BMC Evol Biol. 2018; 18: 102. doi: 10.1186/s12862-018-1212-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Smith ME, Chamberlain KR, Singer BS, Carroll AR. Eocene clocks agree: coeval 40Ar/39Ar, U-Pb, and astronomical ages from the Green River Formation. Geology. 2010; 38: 527–530. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Olson SL, Parris DC. The Cretaceous birds of New Jersey. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology. 1987; 63: 1–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Lartet E. Note sur un humérus fossile d’oiseau, attribué à un très-grand palmipède de la section des Longipennes. Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des Séances de l’Académie des Sciences (Paris). 1857; 44: 736–741. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Clarke JA, Chatterjee S, Li Z, Riede T, Agnolin F, Goller F, Isasi MP, Martinioni DR, Mussel FJ, Novas FE. Fossil evidence of the avian vocal organ from the Mesozoic. Nature. 2016; 538: 502–505. doi: 10.1038/nature19852 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Hospitaleche CA, Worthy TH. New data on the Vegavis iaai holotype from the Maastrichtian of Antarctica. Cret Res. 2021; 124: 104818. doi: 10.1016/j.cretres.2021.104818 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Houde P, Dickson M, Camarena D. Basal Anseriformes from the Early Paleogene of North America and Europe. Diversity. 2023; 15: 233. doi: 10.3390/d15020233 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Mayr G. A new avian species with tubercle-bearing cervical vertebrae from the Middle Eocene of Messel (Germany). Records of the Australian Museum. 2010; 62: 21–28. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Grande L, Buchheim P. Paleontological and sedimentological variation in early Eocene Fossil Lake. Rocky Mountain Geol. 1994; 30:1. doi: 10.2113/gsrocky.30.1.33 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Nesbitt SJ, Clarke JA. The anatomy and taxonomy of the exquisitely preserved Green River Formation (Early Eocene) Lithornithids (Aves) and the relationships of Lithornithidae. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist. 2016; 2016(406): 1–91. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Howard H. A new wading bird from the Eocene of Patagonia. Am Mus Novit. 1955; 1710: 1–25. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Alvarenga, HMF. A fossil Screamer (Anseriformes: Anhimidae) from the middle Tertiary of southeastern Brazil. In: Olson SL, editor. Avian Paleontology at the Close of the 20th Century: Proceedings of the 5th International Meeting of the Society of Avian Paleontology and Evolution, Washington, D.C., 4–7 June 1996. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology 89; 1999. Pp. 223–230.
  • 50.Matthew WD, Granger W. The skeleton of Diatryma, a gigantic bird from the lower Eocene of Wyoming. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist. 1917; 37(11): 307–325. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Mayr G, De Pietri VL, Love L, Mannering A, Scofield RP. Oldest, smallest and phylogenetically most basal Pelagornithid, from the early Paleocene of New Zealand, sheds light on the evolutionary history of the largest flying birds. Pap Palaeontol. 2021; 7(1): 217–233. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Elzanowski A, Stidham TA. Morphology of the quadrate in the Eocene anseriform Presbyornis and extant galloanserine birds. Journal of Morphology. 2010; 271: 305–323. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Zelenitsky DK, Therrien F, Ridgley RC, McGee AR, Witmer LM. Evolution of olfaction in non-avian theropod dinosaurs and birds. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2011; 278(1725). doi: 10.1098/rspb.2011.0238 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Olson, SL. The anseriform relationships of Anatalavis Olson and Parris (Anseranatidae), with a species from the lower Eocene London Clay. In: Olson SL, editor. Avian Paleontology at the Close of the 20th Century: Proceedings of the 5th International Meeting of the Society of Avian Paleontology and Evolution, Washington, D.C., 4–7 June 1996. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology 89. 1999. pp. 231–243.
  • 55.Mayr G, Weidig I. The early Eocene bird Gallinuloides wyomingensis—a stem group representative of Galliformes. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 2004; 49(2): 211–217. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Clarke JA. Morphology, phylogenetic taxonomy, and systematics of Ichthyornis and Apatornis (Avialae: Ornithurae). Bull Am Mus Nat Hist. 2004; 286: 1–179. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Houde PW. Paleognathous Birds from the Early Tertiary of the Northern Hemisphere. Cambridge, MA: Publications of the Nuttall Ornithological Club; 1988. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.De Pietri VL, Scofield RP, Zelenkov N, Boles WE, Worthy TH. The unexpected survival of an ancient lineage of anseriform birds into the Neogene of Australia: the youngest record of Presbyornithidae. R Soc Open Sci. 2016; 3(2). doi: 10.1098/rsos.150635 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Boles WE, Finch MA, Hofheins RH, Vickers-Rich P, Walters M, Rich TH. A fossil stone-curlew (Aves: Burhinidae) from the Late Oligocene/Early Miocene of South Australia. In: Gohlich UB, Kroh A, editors. Paleornithological Research 2013: Proceedings of the 8th International Meeting of the Society of Avian Paleontology and Evolution. Vienna, Australia: Naturhistorisches Museum Wien; 2013. pp 43–61. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Mayr G, Carrio V, Kitchener AC. On the “screamer-like” birds from the British London Clay: An archaic anseriform-galliform mosaic and a non-galloanserine “barb-necked” species of Perplexicervix. Paleontologica Electronica. 2023; 26.2.a33.
  • 61.Gauthier J, de Queiroz K. Feathered dinosaurs, flying dinosaurs, crown dinosaurs, and the names “Aves.” In: New Perspectives on the Origin and Early Evolution of Birds: Proceedings of the International Symposium in Honor of John H. Ostrum. New Haven, CT: Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University. 2001. pp. 7–41. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Wagler JG. Einige Mittheilungen über Thiere Mexicos. Isis von Oken. 1831; 5: 510–535. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Peteya JA, Clarke JA, Li Q, Gao K, Shawkey MD. The plumage and colouration of an Enantiornithine bird from the Early Cretaceous of China. Palaeontology. 2017; 60, 55–71. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Hone DWE, Tischlinger H, Xu X, Zhang F. The extent of the preserved feathers on the four-winged dinosaur Microraptor gui under ultraviolet light. PLoS One. 2010; 5: 1–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Currie PJ, Chen P. Anatomy of Sinosauropteryx prima from Liaoning, northeastern China. Can. J. Earth Sci. 2001; 38: 1705–1727. [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Hu D, Hou L, Zhang L, Xu X. A pre-Archaeopteryx troodontid from China with long feathers on the metatarsus. Nature. 2009; 461: 640–643. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.O’Leary MA, Kaufman SG. MorphoBank 3.0: Web Application for Morphological Phylogenetics and Taxonomy [Internet]. 2012 [cited Mar 12 2019]. morphobank.org.
  • 68.Shoshoni Dictionary [Internet]. Shoshoni Language Project. 2018 [cited Aug 6 2020]. https://shoshoniproject.utah.edu/language-materials/shoshoni-dictionary/ dictionary.php.
  • 69.Buchheim P. Eocene fossil lake, Green River Formation, Wyoming: a history of fluctuating salinity. In: Renaut RW, Last WM, editors. Sedimentology and Geochemistry of Modern and Ancient Saline Lakes. Broken Arrow, OK: SEPM Special Publication; 1994. p. 50. doi: 10.2110/pec.94.50.0239 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Weidig I. New birds from the lower Eocene Green River Formation, North America. In: Boles WE, Worthy TH, editors. Proceedings of the VII International Meeting of the Society of Avian Paleontology and Evolution. Rec. Aust. Mus. 2010; 62:1. doi: 10.3853/j.0067-1975.62.2010.1544 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Nesbitt SJ, Ksepka DT, Clarke JA. Podargiform Affinities of the Enigmatic Fluvioviridavis platyrhamphus and the Early Diversification of Strisores (“Caprimulgiformes” + Apodiformes). PLoS One. 2011. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0026350 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Olson SL. A Lower Eocene Frigatebird from the Green River Formation of Wyoming (Pelecaniformes: Fregatidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Paleontology. 1977; 35: 1–33. [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Hesse A. A new species of Messelornis (Aves: Gruiformes: Messelornithidae) from the middle Eocene Green River Formation. In: Campbell KE, editor. Contributions in Science: Papers in Avian Paleontotogy Honoring Pierce Brodkorb. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History; 1992. p. 171–178. [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Ksepka DT, Clarke JA. Primobucco mcgrewi (Aves: Coracii) from the Eocene Green River Formation: new anatomical data from the earliest constrained record of stem rollers. J Vertebr Paleontol. 2010; 30: 215–225. [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Ksepka DT, Clarke JA. Stem Parrots (Aves, Halcyornithidae) from the Green River Formation and a Combined Phylogeny of Pan-Psittaciformes. J Paleontol. 2011; 85: 835–852. [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Feduccia A, Martin LD. The Eocene Zygodactyl Birds of North America (Aves: Piciformes). In: Olson SL, editor. Collected Papers in Avian Paleontology Honoring the 90th Birthday of Alexander Wetmore. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology; 1976. 27: 101–110. [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Ksepka DT, Grande L, Mayr G. Oldest finch-beaked birds reveal parallel ecological radiations in the earliest evolution of Passerines. Current Biology. 2019; 29: 657–663. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2018.12.040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Rieppel O, Grande L. A well-preserved fossil amphiumid (Lissamphibia: Caudata) from the Eocene Green River Formation of Wyoming. J Vertebr Paleontol. 1998; 18: 700–708. [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Musser GM, Cracraft J. A new morphological dataset reveals a novel relationship for the adzebills of New Zealand (Aptornis) and provides a foundation for total evidence neoavian phylogenetics. Am Mus Novit. 2019; 2019: 1–70. doi: 10.1206/3927.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Mayr G. Variations in the hypotarsus morphology of birds and their evolutionary significance. Acta Zool. 2016; 97: 196–210. [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Field DJ, Lynner C, Brown C, Darroch SAF. Skeletal correlates for body mass estimation in modern and fossil flying birds. PLoS One. 2013; 8:e82000. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082000 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Baumel JJ, Witmer LM. Osteologia. In: Baumel JJ, King AS, Breazile JE, Evans HE, Vanden Berge JC, editors. Handbook of Avian Anatomy: Nomina Anatomica Avium. Cambridge: Publications of the Nuttall Ornithological Club; 1993. p. 45–132. [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Marsh OC. Notice of a new and remarkable fossil bird. American Journal of Science. 1872; 3rd series, 4: 344. [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Musser G, Clarke JA. An exceptionally preserved specimen from the Green River Formation elucidates complex phenotypic evolution in Gruiformes and Charadriiformes. Front Ecol Evol. 2020; 8: 559929. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2020.559929 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.The Mesquite Project Team. 2021. Documentation for Mesquite: a modular system for evolutionary analysis. http://www.mesquiteproject.org.
  • 86.Cracraft JL, Clarke JA. The basal clades of modern birds. In: Gauthier J, Gall LF, editors. New Perspectives on the Origin and Early Evolution of Birds. New Haven (CT): Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University; 2001. p. 143–156. [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Clarke JA, Norell MA. Fossils and avian evolution. Nature. 2001; 414: 508. doi: 10.1038/3510714611734844 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Mayr G, Clarke JA. The deep divergences of neornithine birds: a phylogenetic analysis of morphological characters. Cladistics. 2003; 19: 527–553. doi: 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2003.tb00387.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Livezey BC, Zusi RL. Higher-order phylogeny of modern birds (Theropoda, Aves: Neornithes) based on comparative anatomy (I. Methods and characters). Bulletin of Carnegie Museum of Natural History. 2006; 37: 1–544. [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Clark K, Karsch-Mizrachi I, Lipman DJ, Ostell J, Sayers EW. Genbank. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016; 44: D67–D72. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv1276 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Reddy S, Kimball RT, Pandey A, Hosner PA, Braun MJ, Hackett SJ, et al. Why do phylogenomic data sets yield conflicting trees? Data type influences the avian tree of life more than taxon sampling. Syst. Biol. 2017. 66(5). doi: 10.1093/sysbio/syx041 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Katoh K, Misawa K, Kuma K, Miyata T. MAFFT: a novel method for rapid multiple sequence alignment based on fast Fourier transform. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002; 30(14): 3059–3066. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkf436 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Posada D. jModelTest: Phylogenetic Model Averaging. Mol Biol Evol. 2008; 25: 1253–1256. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msn083 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Song F, Li H, Jiang P, Zhou X, Liu J, Sun C, et al. Capturing the Phylogeny of Holometabola with Mitochondrial Genome Data and Bayesian Site-Heterogeneous Mixture Models. Genome Biology and Evolution. 2016; 8: 1411–1426. doi: 10.1093/gbe/evw086 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Swofford DL. PAUP* Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other Methods). Version 4.0a164 (X86). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Lanave C, Preparata C, Saccone C, Serio G. A new method for calculating evolutionary substitution rates. J Mol Evol. 1984; 20: 86–93. doi: 10.1007/BF02101990 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Yang Z. Maximum likelihood phylogenetic estimation from DNA sequences with variable rates over sites: approximate methods. J. Mol. Evol. 1994; 39: 306–314. doi: 10.1007/BF00160154 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Lewis PO. A likelihood approach to estimating phylogeny from discrete morphological character data. Syst Biol. 2001; 50: 913–925. doi: 10.1080/106351501753462876 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Yang Z, Rannala B. Bayesian phylogenetic inference using DNA sequences: a Markov Chain Monte Carlo Method. Mol Biol Evol. 1997; 14: 717–724. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a025811 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Huelsenbeck JP, Ronquist F. MrBayes: bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics. 2001; 17: 754–755. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/17.8.754 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP. MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics. 2003; 19: 1572–1574. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg180 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Miller MA, Pfeiffer W, Schwartz T. Creating the CIPRES Science Gateway for inference of large phylogenetic trees. In: Proceedings of the Gateway Computing Environments Workshop (GCE). New Orleans, LA: IEEE; 2010. pp 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Manegold A. Two additional synapomorphies of grebes Podicipedidae and flamingos Phoenicopteridae. Acta Ornithol. 2006; 41: 79–82. [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Torres CR, Norell MA, Clarke JA. Bird neurocranial and body mass evolution across the end-Cretaceous mass extinction: The avian brain shape left other dinosaurs behind. Science Advances. 2021; 7. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abg7099 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Benito J, Kuo PC, Widrig KE, Jagt JWM, Field DJ. Cretaceous ornithurine supports a neognathous crown bird ancestor. Nature. 2022; 612: 100–105. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05445-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Olson SL, Wetmore A. Preliminary diagnoses of two extraordinary new genera of birds from Pleistocene deposits in the Hawaiian Islands. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. 1976; 89: 247–258. [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Olson SL, James HF. Descriptions of thirty-two new species of birds from the Hawaiian islands. I. Non-passeriformes. Ornithol Monagr. 1991; 45: 1–88. [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Norell MA, Makovicky PJ, Currie PJ. The beaks of ostrich dinosaurs. Nature. 2001; 412: 873–874. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Barrett PM. The diet of ostrich dinosaurs (the Ornithomimosauria). Palaeontology. 2005; 48: 347–358. [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Alves de Souza G, Soares MB, Weinschütz LC, Wilner E, Lopes RT, Oliveira de Araújo OM, et al. The first edentulous ceratosaur from South America. Nature Scientific Reports. 2021; 11: 22281. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-01312-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Bramble DM. Occurrence and significance of the os transiliens in gopher tortises. Copeia. 1974; 1: 102–109. [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Pritchard PCH. Encyclopedia of turtles. New Jersey: TFH Publications; 1979. [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Weishampel DB. Evolution of jaw mechanisms in ornithopod dinosaurs. Adv Anat Embryol Cel. 1984; 87: 1–110. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-69533-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Forster CA. Hadrosauridae. In: Currie PJ, Padian K, editors. Encyclopedia of dinosaurs. San Diego: Academic Press; 1997. pp. 293–299. [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Kooloos JGM, Kraaijeveld AR, Langenbach GEJ, Zweers GA. Comparative mechanics of filter feeding. In: Anas platyrhynchos, Anas clypeata and Aythya fuligula (Aves, Anseriformes). Zoomorphology. 1989; 108: 269–290. [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Van der Leeuw AHJ, Kurk K, Snelderwaard PC, Bout RG, Berkhoudt H. Conflicting demands on the trophic system of Anseriformes and their evolutionary implications. Anim Biol. 2003; 53: 259–302. [Google Scholar]
  • 117.King AS. Functional anatomy of the syrinx in Form and Function in Birds. McLelland London: Academic Press; 1989. pp. 105–192. [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Martin LD. The beginning of the modern avian radiation. Documents des Laboratories de Giologieban. 1987; 99: 9–19. [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Wintrich T, Scaal M, Böhmer C, Schellhorn R, Kogan I, van der Reest A, et al. Palaeontological evidence reveals convergent evolution of intervertebral joint types in amniotes. Nature Scientific Reports. 2020; 10: 14106. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-70751-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Yakovlev VN. Functional evolution of the fish skeleton. Int Geol Rev. 1967; 9:4, 525–532. doi: 10.1080/00206816709474481 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Laerm J. The development, function, and design of amphicoelous vertebrae in teleost fishes. Zool J Linn Soc. 1976; 58: 237–254. [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Molnar JL, Pierce SE, Bhullar BS, Turner AH, Hutchinson JR. Morphological and functional changes in the vertebral column with increasing aquatic adaptation in crocodylomorphs. R Soc Open Sci. 2015; 2: 150439. doi: 10.1098/rsos.150439 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123.Romer AS. Osteology of the Reptiles. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 1956. [Google Scholar]
  • 124.Raigemborn MS, Krause JM, Bellosi E, Matheos SD. Redefinición estratigráfica del grupo Río Chico (Paleógeno inferior), en el norte de la Cuenca del Golfo San Jorge, Chubut. Revista de la Asociación Geológica Argentina. 2010; 67: 239–256. [Google Scholar]
  • 125.Olson SL. A Giant Presbyornis (Aves, Anseriformes) and Other Birds from the Paleocene Aquia Formation of Maryland and Virginia. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. 1994; 107: 429–435. [Google Scholar]
  • 126.Clarke JA, Norell MA. New Avialan Remains and a Review of the Known Avifauna from the Late Cretaceous Nemegt Formation of Mongolia. Am Mus Novit. 2004; 2004: 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  • 127.Kurochkin EN, Dyke HJ. A large collection of Presbyornis (Aves, Anseriformes, Presbyornithidae) from the late Paleocene and early Eocene of Mongolia. Geol J. 2010; 45: 375–387. [Google Scholar]
  • 128.Hood SC, Torres CR, Norell MA, Clarke JA. (2019). New Fossil Birds from the Earliest Eocene of Mongolia. Am Mus Novit. 2019; 2019: 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  • 129.Crane PR, Lidgard S. Angiosperm Diversification and Paleolatitudinal Gradients in Cretaceous Floristic Diversity. Science. 1989; 246: 675–678. doi: 10.1126/science.246.4930.675 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 130.Kaiho K, Oshima N, Adachi K, Adachi Y, Mizukami T, Fujibayashi M, et al. Global climate change driven by soot at the K-Pg boundary as the cause of the mass extinction. Sci Rep-UK. 2016; 6: 1–13. doi: 10.1038/srep28427 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 131.Field DJ, Bercovici A, Berv JS, Dunn R, Fastovsky DE, Lyson TR, et al. Early evolution of modern birds structured by global forest collapse at the end-Cretaceous mass extinction. Curr Biol. 2018; 28: 1825–1831. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2018.04.062 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 132.Condamine FL, Silvestro D, Koppelhus EB, Antonelli A. The rise of angiosperms pushed conifers to decline during global cooling. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2020; 117: 28867–28875. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2005571117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 133.Lyons SL, Karp AT, Bralower TJ, Grice K, Schaefer B, Gulick SP, et al. Organic matter from the Chicxulub crater exacerbated the K—Pg impact winter. PNAS. 2020; 117: 25327–25334. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2004596117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 134.Li S, Sanjuan J, Wang Q, Zhang H, Wan X. Response of the lacustrine flora in East Asia to global climate changes across the K/Pg boundary. Global Planet Change. 2021; 197: 103400. doi: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2020.103400 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 135.Dunning JB. Handbook of Avian Body Masses. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2007. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Thierry Smith

8 Jan 2023

PONE-D-22-32093A new Paleogene fossil and a new dataset for waterfowl (Aves: Anseriformes) clarify phylogeny, ecological evolution, and avian evolution at the K-Pg Boundary.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Musser,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Two experts of Paleogene birds have accepted to comment on your manuscript. Both find the specimen very important, certainly to deserve publication in PLoS One but both are critical regarding its identification. They also have major concerns about the comparisons. The reviewers provided very detailed analysis of the manuscript, including numerous suggestions to help improve it.

I recommend paying particular attention to the following points of the reviews:

- Revaluate or reinforce the systematic attribution based on reviewers’ comments.

- Complete and extend the comparisons, especially with the Anhimidae.

- Make the synonymy of Diatryma with Gastornis (or explain why you disagree), which are not terror birds. This term characterizes another family of giant birds, the Phorusrhacidae.

- Several important papers dealing with the topic are missing. This is stated by the two reviewers. Please consider them in your revision.

- Please consider adding pictures of important anatomical details that are not visible in the present figures.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 22 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Thierry Smith, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please take this opportunity to be sure you have met all of our guidelines for new species. For proper registration of a new zoological taxon, we require two specific statements to be included in your manuscript.

(1) In the Results section, the globally unique identifier (GUID), currently in the form of a Life Science Identifier (LSID), should be listed under the new species name, for example:

Anochetus boltoni Fisher sp. nov. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:B6C072CF-1CA6-40C7-8396-534E91EF7FBB

Another LSID for the manuscript itself should also appear within the Nomenclature statement. You will need to contact Zoobank (zoobank.org/About) to obtain a GUID (LSID). You should receive one LSID for your manuscript and a separate, unique LSID for the new species. 

(2) Please also insert the following text into the Methods section, in a sub-section to be called ""Nomenclatural Acts"":

The electronic edition of this article conforms to the requirements of the amended International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, and hence the new names contained herein are available under that Code from the electronic edition of this article. This published work and the nomenclatural acts it contains have been registered in ZooBank, the online registration system for the ICZN. The ZooBank LSIDs (Life Science Identifiers) can be resolved and the associated information viewed through any standard web browser by appending the LSID to the prefix ""http://zoobank.org/"". The LSID for this publication is: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub: XXXXXXX. The electronic edition of this work was published in a journal with an ISSN, and has been archived and is available from the following digital repositories: PubMed Central, LOCKSS [author to insert any additional repositories].

All PLOS ONE articles are deposited in PubMed Central and LOCKSS. If your institute, or those of your co-authors, has its own repository, we recommend that you also deposit the published online article there and include the name in your article.

Following a recent ruling by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, electronic journals are now a valid format for publication of new zoological taxa. 

In order to ensure the valid publication of your new species, please be sure to include the updated version of Nomenclatural Acts (above). A complete explanation of our guidelines for publishing new species can be found on our website: http://www.plosone.org/static/guidelines#zoological.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

"..We thank Joel Cracraft, Paul Sweet, Mark Norell, Ruth O’Leary and Carl Mehling of AMNH for access to the Ornithology and Vertebrate Paleontology Collections and thank the Ornithology Department of AMNH for the Ornithology Collections Study Grant that aided in funding this work.."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

"This project was supported by a National Science Foundation GRFP (https://www.nsfgrfp.org/) award (to G.M., grant number DGE-16-4486), an Ornithology Collections Study Grant from the American Museum of Natural History (https://www.amnh.org/research/vertebrate-zoology/ornithology ;to G.M., 2019) and the Jackson School of Geosciences (https://www.jsg.utexas.edu/ ;G.M. and J.A.C). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

6. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: You make extensive comparisons between the new taxon and extant and fossil duck-billed anseriforms (Presbyornis, Anatalavis, Anseranatidae, and Anatidae). However, just because of the absence of a duck-like beak, it is fairly obvious that the fossil is not very closely related to any of these taxa. What would instead be needed are more detailed comparisons with the Anhimidae, which is particularly true for the differential diagnosis, where Anhimidae are only mentioned once (and not differentiated from the new taxon). The description also mainly focuses on comparisons with non-anhimid taxa, which is difficult to understand given the fact that the fossil is much more similar to the Anhimidae than to the Anseranatidae and Anatidae.

Also, at the beginning of the results part you write that "Paakniwatavis grandei is recovered across all analyses as the sister taxon of Anseranatidae". However, this is not true, as is obvious from the tree you show, where it is the sister taxon of Anseranatidae + Anhimidae.

The omission, of the Anhimidae from most of your comparisons and discussion is difficult to understand and results in awkward statements like ” We recover Paakniwatavis grandei as the sister taxon to an Anseranas+Anatidae” (beginning of discussion). Actually, you recover the fossil as the sister taxon of an “Anhimidae + (Anseranatidae + Anatidae)) clade, and given the great similarity to screamers in some features (e.g., the massive furcula and the shape of the coracoid), I consider it highly likely that your fossil is a stem group anhimid.

I also do not quite understand, why any comparison with the Anhimidae are omitted from the discussion, as these certainly are the extant anseriform taxon that is most similar to the fossil with regard to skull morphology. You emphasize a potential significance of the new fossil for an understanding of anseriform evolution, but without any reference to the Anhimidae, this significance remains elusive. If this fossil is indeed a stem group anseriform, it would show that many features of the Anhimidae are plesiomorphic for anseriforms, as has been assumed by earlier authors. If it is a stem group anhimid, than the leg morphology may suggest that screamers were more aquatic in the past. In any case, a more balanced discussion is needed that includes more comparisons with the Anhimidae

What is needed is a more thorough discussion of the affinities pf the fossil. You note that “Seven unambiguous and three ambiguous optimized synapomorphies of the quadrate, mandible, furcula, scapula, carpometacarpus, tarsometatarsus and pedal phalanges support placement of P. grandei as a stem anseranatid.” However, what exactly does this mean? Are these characters present in crown group anseriforms but absent in the fossil? In the following text it rather reads as if these features were also present in the fossil, in which case they would not support a stem group position.

In my opinion, the comments on the evolution of syrinx morphology are out of place in the discussion, because the new taxon does not contribute to these issues. Given the unstable position of the fossil (and other anseriforms) in your analyses, ancestral state reconstructions are of rather limited value.

The fact that you recover a “Diatryma =Gastornis]+Pelagornithidae group” challenges the appropriateness your data set and it would be interesting to know what the character evidence for this grouping might be. Given the highly uncertain affinities of these fossils, I would also refrain from calling them “stem anseriform”, which is at least unlikely for pelagornithids.

I also believe that the title of the manuscript is not quite appropriate for this paper ("A new Paleogene fossil and a new dataset for waterfowl (Aves: Anseriformes) clarify phylogeny, ecological evolution, and avian evolution at the K-Pg Boundary"). Not only does your phylogenetic data set yield conflicting results, but I also do not see why this early Eocene fossil elucidates avian evolution at the K/Pg boundary. Actually, what you describe is a "screamer-like anseriform from the Green River Formation", in line with previous proposals that such birds were present in the early Eocene of North America (see comments above).

- throughout the manuscript: Why has the North American gastornithiform been assigned to the taxon Diatryma rather than to Gastornis? Most current authors synonymize both taxa.

p. 4, line 95: why do you consider the beak shape of the Paleocene Conflicto to be “largely unknown”? The holotype includes a nearly complete skull with nicely preserved beak.

- you should perhaps indicate that screamer-like Eocene anseriforms have already be identified by Peter Houde. These were mentioned by, e.g., Feduccia 1999 and Mayr 2009, 2017, 2022. It is likely that these fossils are closely related to your specimen. It would also be good to cite at least some of the aforementioned studies that indicate the presence of anhimid-like anseriforms in the early Eocene of North America.

- line 128: “partial skeleton and tracheal rings” – I would consider the tracheal rings to be part of the skeleton (usually one also do not separately mention, for example, scleral rings).

- line 130: you hypothesize that part of the skeleton has been” eroded”, by I think that this is an unfortunate wording. To me it rather appears as if the central part of the skeleton was dissolved by an acidic environment (possibly owing to the putrefaction of the trunk). Similar taphonomies are known from bog bodies and some birds from Messel.

- line 178: “dorsoventrally thick retroarticular process” – wouldn’t “dorsoventrally deep” be better (also in other places of the manuscript)?

- line 318: “cranio-medial aspect ” – this should be “cranio-ventral”

- line 320: The humeral head – what is meant here – the proximal end of the bone or the caput humeri? To avoid ambiguity, I suggest to use the proper anatomical terms throughout the manuscript.

- line 322: “tuberculum supracondylare ventrale” (add “e”)

- line 334: ” and has broken onto the skull.” – is this correct English? Sounds awkward to me.

- line 368: “supratendineus” (add “e”)

- line 371 “two sulci are present” – because you identify these sulci in the figure, some comments in the description would be appropriate. Also you may cite Mayr (201t5) for the identification of the hypotarsal sulci.

- line 373: “metatarsal trochlea III” – why not use the correct anatomical term (trochlea metatarsi III)?

- line 526: Presbyornis” (add “s”)

- line 566: “terror birds such as Gastornis” – gastornithiforms are no “terror birds”. This name is used for the Phorusrhacidae. It is also confusing that you use Gastornis here, whereas you classify the North American species as “Diatryma” (see above).

- line 586: “supratendineus” (substitute “o” with “e”)

- line 768 ff.: “all analyses recover the Cretaceous-Paleogene taxa Vegavis, Anatalavis, Conflicto, 769 Presbyornis and Telmabates within a clade that is the sister taxon to Anatidae”. Here, it would be good to note that some evidence against this classification exists, such as the absence of long retroarticular processes in Vegavis (see Mayr et al. 2018: On the taxonomic composition and phylogenetic affinities of the recently proposed clade Vegaviidae Agnolín et al., 2017 ‒ neornithine birds from the Upper Cretaceous of the Southern Hemisphere).

- line 784: “amphiplatyan“ – is this a correct word?

- line 1984: “Ericson, Per G. P.” – abbreviate the surname Per.

Reviewer #2: This paper represents an impressive study of a new and important fossil that bears on the early evolution of waterfowl. Overall, I have the impression that the authors have over-interpreted what is a preservationally compromised specimen. I am unable to fully assess whether the analyses have been undertaken rigorously as I do not have access to the author's data to independently verify it.

I hope my detailed comments below will prove helpful in necessary moderate revision.

23 - It is incorrect to say that Anseriformes have a comparatively rich, Cretaceous fossil

record

36-37 - Abstract – it is stated that the new Eocene taxon as a stem anseranatid across all analyses, yet it is not assigned or diagnosed as such. Instead it is simply Anseriformes

45 - Diatryma is a junior synonym of Gastornis

65 - I don’t recall that Olson and Feduccia 1980 claimed that Anhimidae possessed pedal webbing

89-90 - early Eocene Fossil Butte Member (FBM; 51.97 ± 0.16 Ma; Smith et al., 2010) of the Green River Formation

90-91 - The taxon was originally illustrated with a prospective referral by Storrs Olson to Heliornithidae (finfoots; Grande 2013); On the contrary, Grande included this fossil in his section “Waterfowl (Anseriformes…” He referred to this as an “undescribed possible waterfowl” and “an anseriform-like bird” (p225). There is no mention of Storrs Olson or heliornithids.

165 – “palaeognathid” is neither a family nor a word

167 – frigatebird is one word

168 – previously this is described as an unidentified ibis-like taxon

171 – the citation of Feduccia and Martin 1976 is odd since the birds they originally described have all been rediagnosed, without exception, yet the authors of this manuscript have avoided citing relevant original literature of other taxa. The literature review is selectively incomplete, and perhaps biased.

187-244 – numerous characters described in the Differential Diagnosis and Description are insufficiently illustrated for the reader to independently verify or even understand the features described. I cannot understand how details of the scapula or sternum can be inferred from Figure 1. I have not been given access to supplemental CT images. Without better documentation, I am left with the impression that the interpretations far outstrip the evidence.

191-192 - I do not believe that it can be shown that the bill was narrower than the bilateral width of the paroccipital processes on the basis of the crushed specimen.

198 – “blind pneumatic foramen” is an oxymoron

207 – Is there a pneumatic foramen to show that the fossa pneumotricipitalis of the humerus is pneumatic in Paakniwatavis?

213-214 – it is unclear what is meant by “The craniocaudal lengths of manual digits II and III at the synostosis are subequal in Paakniwatavis”

229 – medial mandibular process? retroarticular process?

233 - “is of”

233-234 - distal aperture of the sulcus extensorius, not the pons

240-241, 325, 548 – what is meant by “domed” crista

245 – Chaunoides is not italicized

248 – it is unclear what is meant by “the sternal facet curves cranially”

249 – the major metatarsal ridge does not appear to be hooked distally in Figure 4F1, F2

264 – In what way(s) are the crania of anhimids and Anseranas similar? This surprising statement needs elaboration.

265 – how can either jugal be evident if they are covered by the carpometacarpus and how could the left be evident if it is the right side of the skull that is exposed?

265-267 – it is not clear to me from the illustrations that the “lateroventrally projecting supraorbital crest is present”. Instead, it appears that the left prefrontal is broader than the supraorbital.

267 – that the postorbital process is (revealed by CT scans to be) elongate like that of most Anseriformes is particularly surprising since it is not in screamers, to which the bill of the new fossils resembles. The postorbital serves as an origin of jaw musculature that, among other characters, is associated with advanced filter feeding behavior of Anseriformes.

306-307 – stout relative to what directions?

309 – are there such things as ventral and dorsal clavicles?

313 – sternal (=proximal) or omal (=distal) extremities, not distal bases

314-315 - if CT images show the procoracoid to be present, then it should be included in Figure 4F

319 vs 230 – the descriptions of the deltopectoral crest seem a little contradictory

327 – ulnar body; than that of the humerus

329 – impressio brachialis

344 – check grammar

365 – is appears

377-383 – it may be true that femur length is the best (or only) correlate of body mass among those that that could be measured, but the scaling functions are sensitive to taxonomic group. The proportions of this fossil (e.g., pre vs postacetabular pelvis) are more like that of screamers than typical anatoids, on which the slope for Anseriformes is mostly if not entirely based. In my experience, the femora of even fossils preserved in the round produce mass estimates with error ranges as high as 100%. Thus, to report this estimate to the first decimal with no error range is unacceptable.

394 comprised of or include

467-504 – It is very interesting that the inclusion of Wilaru resulted in wide ranging discombobulation of the phylogeny, especially since it is so strongly supported as a member of Presbyornithidae! This, and the different mitochondrial results among anatoids that are a tad tangential to the subject here, might well be worthy of elaboration in a separate paper. What would be relevant to the subject of this manuscript, but is not reported, is whether similar eyebrow-raising results of the phylogenies reported here would accrue if Paakniwatavis was excluded. To what extent are these the effect of the fossil or of the character set? At any rate, these results cannot be dismissed as the result of Wilaru being know from only “highly fragmentary” remains, as its two species are in fact known from an abundance (embarrassingly large compared with, say, Vegavis, about which so much is written) of well preserved specimens.

530 congruent, not confluent

559-578 – in light of the different results reviewed in this paragraph, it would be a good idea to define what is meant by Anseriformes as it is used on line 578.

576, 592 – ambiguously optimized

594-595 - the crista

595 awkward sentence

613-614 – I am confused whether the length of the hallux was measured or inferred by ancestral state reconstruction. Regardless, if it was unusually long, then this would be similar to the condition in screamers and jacanas, which are noted for foraging from on top of floating vegetation.

625 – identical to what?

459, 643 – the authors used only 7 of the ~33 used by Hinić Frlog [misspelled throughout] and Montani in their study of skeletal correlates of swimming modes in their fossil. That Chauna was ambiguously recovered as a wing-propelled diver and that Degrange found similar morphospace among such ecologically dissimilar birds as cursorial/terrestrial paleognaths and diving loons and grebes using similar analysis make the authors appropriately circumspect of their results.

699 – Presbyornis, Anatalavis and to some extent Conflicto can all be characterized as having a spatulate beak, but they are each very dissimilar from one another and each more alike Stictonetta, Spatula, and Mergus, resp.

768, 811 – Conflicto is reported by Tambussi et al to be Paleocene. No more recent publication is cited to justify citing it as Cretaceous. It is unjustifiable to assume that “Cretaceous” (also Paleocene) Anatalavis had a spatulate bill. Olson, himself, said it would have been impossible to have known that Presbyornis did until its skull was discovered.

814 – gastornithids is an adjective and not capitalized

Figure 2 – The figure would benefit from additional labeling. Given the detailed description of cranial characters that cannot be discerned from the figure, there is an argument to be made to have an artist’s three-dimensional reconstruction of the skull. For a long time, I puzzled over two parallel bars of bone oriented rostrocaudally in the crushed upper bill. One of these must be the right tomium, I concluded that the other must be the left side of the mandible. But if so, then why is there apparently no elevation of the left coronoid as it so clearly is on the right side? There are various seemingly extraneous lines in panel A that appear to be artifacts. If they aren’t, then they should be labeled.

Figure 3 – the furcula of Paakniwatavis (fig. 3 N, O) appears no thicker than that of Presbyornis (fig. 3 M) as claimed

Figure 4 - the labeling F1-F4 is strangely inconsistent with the rest of the figure. More importantly, the caption does not identify whether the images of F1,F2 are of one tarsometatarsus from opposite sides or both right and left. F3,4 are said to be of “the same tarsometatarsus”

Figure 5 – the reconstruction is aesthetic, but somewhat misrepresentative, i.e., unfused lacrimals (not described, if so), sternum tiny, furcula narrow, the angle of dorsal and sternal costae oriented as in flightless ‘ratites’, intramembral proportions of hindlimb elements not quite as reported on lines 235, 362. Missing cervical vertebrae are indicated by dark gray. Other missing parts of the skeleton (e.g., of the sternum, proximal left tibiotarsus, ) should be, too, for consistency although much of that can be gleaned from the line drawing background of the figure.

There are five blank pages following character description #719 in the Appendix. Were there supposed to be illustrations or citations here?

The number of characters scored for this study are impressive, but relatively few can be scored for the new fossil. The resulting phylogeny might therefore be robust for neotaxa (however, the much larger dataset of Livezey and Zusi failed to reproduce what are known relationships even of living birds), but have little to say about the position of this fossil within it. Despite the scoring of ten “relevant traits that detail habitat preference” it is a stretch of credulity to suggest that ancestral state reconstruction could meaningfully predict the status of characters such as rhamphothecal lamellae in what is a marginally fossil, even by Green River standards.

Unfortunately, I could not verify many of the most important character descriptions because the data were not made available to me. The authors state that the data will become available on Morphobank and Dryad following acceptance and supply of a manuscript number. This is inconsistent with the registration of LSIDs in which the paper was reported to be “in press” in PloS One (notably before I received a request to review it).

One of my biggest concerns is whether the name Paakniwatavis is available or preoccupied. The authors used the name, together with a full description of the fossil in a preprint that appears on BioRxiv. Unrelated to the present manuscript, in May 2022 I inquired with the Secretary of the ICZN whether this could be done. I was advised not to do so. In December 2022 I became aware of a preprint of the present manuscript on bioRxiv in which the name was erected and assigned an LSID. There are only two other LSIDs associated with BioRxiv registered on Zoobank. Both are published works. I queried the Administrator of ZooBank whether Paakniwatavis was preoccupied or a nomen nudum. His answer was that it is unclear. This is his response:

“As for bioRxiv being pre-publication by definition, this is something the Commission has discussed and has not yet resolved. Art. 9.9 says that works cannot be published as “preliminary versions of works accessible electronically in advance of publication”. However, this Article is very problematic because it simply says that a work cannot be published until it is published. And technically, fulfilling all the requirements of the Code for a published work means it’s published. If an electronic work fulfills all the criteria for publication (e.g., prior registration in ZooBank, evidence of registration within the work itself, online archive and ISSN indicated in ZooBank, etc.), then it is published in the sense of the Code. The main reason why bioRxiv would fail the criteria for publication would be Art. 8.1.1: “it must be issued for the purpose of providing a public and permanent scientific record”. So, if bioRxiv is not explicitly indicated as issuing PDFs for the purpose of providing a public and permanent scientific record”, then it would fail to serve as a venue for Code-compliant published works. However, there is no guidance in the Code on how one assesses whether a given PDF is issued for the purpose of providing a public and permanent scientific record. Unless bioRxiv explicitly states that this is not it’s purpose, one could argue that it is intended for the purpose of providing a public and permanent scientific record. … In summary, nothing has yet been published in the sense of the ICZN Code within bioRxiv. And there is some debate whether anything *could* be published therein (based on interpretations of Art. 8.1.1, and Art. 9.9). … as there is no clear answer for how to interpret Art 9.9 (the rule that prevents publication as “preliminary versions of works”). Thus, it’s somewhat ambiguous whether names created within a “pre-publication” can be Code-compliant – depending on how one interprets Art. 9.9 and Art. 8.1.1). … This is a really interesting case, because technically, by a very narrow interpretation of the Code (which I doubt most Commissioners would agree with), it fulfills the requirements of the Code, unless the PDF version available on bioRxiv (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517648v1.full.pdf) fails Art. 8.1.1. I will need to share this example with the Commission to see if there is any way it could be considered published in the sense of the Code as a PDF available through bioRxiv. I will need to get back to you on this.” [He has not, but in a subsequent email wrote:] “I’m still drafting the email to the Commission to examine this case. I also just noticed your email to me from two days ago – VERY sorry I missed that! I would have replied sooner had I not missed it! Indeed, this is a very interesting case.”

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Jul 30;19(7):e0278737. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278737.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


31 Mar 2023

Please see the attached Response to Reviewers document and the Cover Letter.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx

pone.0278737.s009.docx (1.2MB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Thierry Smith

29 May 2023

PONE-D-22-32093R1A new Paleogene fossil and a new dataset for waterfowl (Aves: Anseriformes) clarify phylogeny, ecological evolution, and avian evolution at the K-Pg Boundary.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Musser,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we continue to believe that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a new revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Both reviewers have accepted to comment on your revised manuscript. They provide very detailed analysis of the manuscript, especially reviewer 2, who put a lot of efforts to provide abundant useful information about morphological and phylogenetic characters, and bibliographic references that were requested in the first round of reviews. They recognize that the manuscript represents a significant investment of work, but it still leaves several unaddressed issues in its current form. Several confusions must also be clarified in your revision before any acceptance.

Reviewer 2 made his comments in a document that is attached. Please be sure to download it.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 13 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the reviewers. You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Thierry Smith, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: You correctly note that I confused your phylogenetic placement in my previous comments for which I apologize. However, this confusion stems from your statement in the abstract (line 56) that says "We recover the new Eocene taxon as a stem anseranatid across all analyses". In line

696 you also note that seven characters "support placement of P. grandei as a stem anseranatid". In your response to the reviewers you also note that the figures of the "resulting trees clearly show that we recover Paakniwatavis grandei as a stem anseranatid across all analyses". I find this very confusing. In the tree, the new taxon is the sister group of the clade (Anseranatidae + Anatidae) - do you use the term Anseranatidae for this clade (which would be very strange and conflict with your use of Anseranatidae in the figures), or is this a lapsus? Based on the phylogenetic trees, the new fossil is a stem group representative of the clade (Anseranatidae + Anatidae), not a stem anseranatid.

My comments on the "duck-like" beak were based on my erroneous assumption that you found the new taxon to be within the clade (Anseranatidae + Anatidae), as a "stem anseranatid" (as repeatedly note in the paper). In this case, the presence of a galliform-like beak would conflict with the duck or goose-like beaks of anseranatids and anatids. Of course, my comments is not valid if the new taxon is outside the clade (Anseranatidae + Anatidae).

Your statement that “Seven unambiguous and three ambiguous optimized synapomorphies of the quadrate, mandible, furcula, scapula, carpometacarpus, tarsometatarsus and pedal phalanges support placement of P. grandei as a stem anseranatid” is not a standard one used in phylogenetic analyses. Apart from the stem anseranatid vs. stem (anseranatid + anatid) issue, your characters can only support an assignment of the taxon to a certain clade. In order to show that it belongs to the stem group of this clade, you would need to list characters that diagnose the crown group of this clade and that are absent in the fossil.

In my first review, I have also commented on screamer-like fossil from North America and Europe, which you omitted from your manuscript. These have meanwhile been described as Anachronornis and Danielsavis: Houde, P., Dickson, M., & Camarena, D. (2023). Basal Anseriformes from the Early Paleogene of North America and Europe. Diversity, 15(2), 233.

In this latter paper, comparisons with the Green River Fossil (Paakniwatavis) were made, and I think you should at least briefly address this study in your paper. On the one hand, the study addresses the fossil you describe, on the other it describes fossils that are possibly related to your new species. Your new taxon also needs to be diagnosed from Anachronornis and Danielsavis.

In your response to the authors you note that Gastornis is a junior synonym of Diatryma. This is certainly not true: Gastornis was described by Hebert 1855 whereas Diatryma is authored by Cope 1876. Gastornis therefore clearly precedes Diatryma by more than two decades.

Reviewer #2: Please refer to attachment for my full review. I paste the first paragraph only here to fulfill the minimum 100 character requirement.

Every novel early Paleogene bird fossil is important in its own right, and this manuscript represents a significant investment of solid work to describe one. That being said, it is unfortunate that the revised manuscript still leaves a great deal to be desired in its current form. The most fundamental among its conceptual flaws are overstated conclusions drawn from ancestral state reconstruction that itself is dependent on a suspect phylogeny. The many origins of these flaws are addressed below.

Continued in attachment.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer 2_PONE-D-22-32093_R1.docx

pone.0278737.s010.docx (25.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Thierry Smith

13 Oct 2023

PONE-D-22-32093R2A new Paleogene fossil and a new dataset for waterfowl (Aves: Anseriformes) clarify phylogeny, ecological evolution, and avian evolution at the K-Pg Boundary.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Musser,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The reviewers have accepted to comment a third time on your revised manuscript. They both consider that this is a very important fossil that needs to be published. However, they both still think the manuscript has many issues. They clearly state where are the issues and offer detailed answers to help improving the manuscript.

May I please you to follow the comments of the reviewers and take actions to make the requested changes. Additional work is required to improve the manuscript.

I really hope you can address the comments, improve substantially the manuscript, and then I would be glad to accept the manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 27 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Thierry Smith, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (1) I strongly suggest to restructure the Differential Diagnosis and to better delimit the new taxon from Danielsavis and Anachronornis.

You start by saying "The rostrum shape exhibited by this taxon is unlike most other previously recovered

Paleogene Anseriformes". However, then you rightly proceed by saying that "When compared to extinct taxa, the narrow bill of Paakniwatavis is most like those of Anachronornis anhimops and Danielsavis nazensis". Most of the comments pertaining to Danielsavis and Anachronornis in your Diff Diagnosis refer to the fact that comparisons of certain elements are not possible, and what would be needed is the inclusion of two paragraphs, in which the new taxon is clearly differentiated from Danielsavis and Anachronornis (note that the wider coracoid shaft may be the result of flattening of the GRF specimen). Actually, a differentiation from Danielsavis and Anachronornis is key to your manuscript, since these two taxa certainly are most similar to your new fossil.

In a differential diagnosis you should actually list similar taxa and differentiate the fossil from the by saying ABC differs from XYZ in .... A diagnosis, by contrast list characters that are considered distinctive (ideally autapomorphic) for a new taxon. Your diagnosis is confusing, because you mix both approaches and make comparisons by skeletal elements, not by taxa. Instead of writing feature XYZ is like in ABC but different from DEF, it would be much clearer to structure the Differential Diagnosis by differentiating Paakniwatavis from each taxon separately (mainly Anachronornis, Danielsavis, and Nettapterornis)

You use the bill width of the new taxon in the differential diagnosis and say that "Paakniwatavis grandei exhibits a mediolaterally narrow bill that is narrower than the width of the skull at the parocciptal processes". However, this statement is not quite clear and needs to be specified further. On the one hand, the skull is exposed in lateral view, so I do not quite understand how you can infer bill width. On the other hand, from what is preserved, the beak appears to have been tapering towards its tip, so that that its width was not constant (the base certainly was wider than the tip).

As a side note: I do not think that the Anseranas-like skull of your reconstruction matches the preserved outline of the skull of the fossil, in which the beak appears to be more anhimid-like. In line 102, you note that "the new fossil presents a narrow bill that is most similar to the Anhimidae" - why, then, has the beak be reconstructed as Anseranas-like (dorsoventrally narrow, hooked tip etc.)?

It is also a misleading that your reconstruction shows a crest or feather tuft on top of the skull - I see no evidence fort this in the fossil, which does not exhibit any soft tissue preservation. This crest/tuft serves to make the reconstruction more Anseranas-like than what is supported by the actual fossil, which likewise shows no evidence for the length of the tail feathers.

(2) Please also note that the Danielsavis material has meanwhile been redescribed and additional features (such as the palate and the pedal phalanges) having been described. Danielsavis was found to be very different from Anachronornis and may actually be a stem group galliform not an anseriform; it is now assigned to a new taxon Danielsavidae.

Mayr, G., Carrió, V., & Kitchener, A.C. 2023: On the “screamer-like” birds from the British London Clay: An archaic anseriform-galliform mosaic and a non-galloanserine “barb-necked” species of Perplexicervix. Palaeontologia Electronica 26(2):a3328; doi: 10.26879/1301.

I agree with the comments of the other reviewer that it would be appropriate to note that Grande (2013) compared the fossil with the Anhimidae. Even if this identification may go back to an initial identification by one of the authors of the present manuscript, it is a published statement upon which future readers may stumble.

- line 302: I agree with reviewer 2 that a distally "hooked" hypotarsus is not visible on the published figures

- line 596: sp. nov. (instead of "sp. Nov.")

- Line 827: "Anachronornis anhimops and Danielsavis nazensis were largely placed outside of

Paleognathae" - I do not quite understand why this statement is here, since none ever suggested that these birds are palaeognathous. Note also that it is "Palaeognathae".

Reviewer #2: Review of PONE-D-22-32093R2 A new Paleogene fossil and a new dataset for waterfowl (Aves: Anseriformes) clarify phylogeny, ecological evolution, and avian evolution at the K-Pg Boundary.

59-60: citation 11 recovers Pelagornithidae as neoavian, not anseriform, as does more recent analysis by Benito et al, cited elsewhere in the manuscript but not cited here. The disagreement among analyses is discussed much later (678-692) but is misrepresented here that there is no disagreement. It should be.

62: Anhimidae are aquatic foragers, not terrestrial except maybe in captivity

73: the term vestigial explicitly refers to an organ that is derived from a functional one but that is no longer functional. This is not the same as the term rudimentary, which does not imply character state polarity. The use of term vestigial is appropriate in the context used here (because this had been suggested long ago) but inappropriate elsewhere in the manuscript.

73-74: anhimids are not palmate, semipalmate at best. This is in fact conceded elsewhere in the manuscript.

81: either misplaced period or capitalize “and”

103, 227: Mayr et al (2023; https://doi.org/10.26879/1301; not cited) vitiated the suggested anseriform relationship of Perplexicervix

206 Diagnosis, 241: Unfortunately, Anachronornis is insufficiently preserved (lacks complete tibiotarsus and tarsometatarsus) to distinguish from Paakniwatavis based on these diagnostic criteria, but it is obviously a different animal based on other characters. Perhaps one or more some should be mentioned in the Diagnosis. I am not fully convinced that the crushed furcula is thick as described based on figure 3N and 3O. It could be, but it doesn’t look different than that of Presbyornis in fig. 3M.

224: add space “and3”

230: Explain what is meant by “the facial margin” of the bill or use accepted terminology. It isn’t clear to me.

233: relative lengths of external nares and rostrum of Anachronornis and Danielsavis are published (Houde et al 2023 figs. 1D and 7; Mayr et al 2023 fig 1B) so this statement is incorrect

249: Houde et al specifically state the humerus of Anachronornis is apneumatic (Houde et al p 19 “Humerus: Nonpneumatic.”) so this statement is incorrect

254: misplaced “I”

258: do the authors mean metacarpals instead of digits? There are no synostoses in the digits (i.e., phalanges). If the carpometacarpus is intended here, then they should also indicate that this is in reference to the distal synostosis.

281-282: “pedal phalanx IV: digit IV is longer than IV: III” makes no obvious sense because the fourth phalanx in digit III is a claw and in digit IV it is not. Perhaps the words digit and phalanx are transposed.

283-288: the description goes from carpometacarpus to humerus back to carpometacarpus. This disorganization was commented on in a previous review.

318-319: no aspect of the bill even remotely resembles Anseranas except that the caudal portion (only) of the tomium is straight. This was commented on in a previous review. The authors are unwilling to concede the obvious.

330-331: I have been provided with no image to verify that the postorbital process was long as claimed. It would be surprising if it was long, since it is not in either anhimids or Presbyornis. This was commented on in a previous review.

379: It is ambiguous whether the authors are stating that the vertebrae of Presbyornis, Nettapterornis and Telmabates are or are not heterocoelous.

381: As above. It is less ambiguous to say “The notarium is present in all Anseriformes…”

431: forms

454: nix “appears”

455: which of the two cnemial crests, cranial or lateral?

517: segmented files are not available on morphobank as claimed. There is one obj file of the quadrate and one stl file of a tarsometatarsus, nothing more. None of the descriptions and character scoring based on segmented CT scans other than these two are verifiable by readers. They need to be.

521-526: There are only 41 taxa included in the nex files in morphobank. In other words, the matrix provided does not include Anachronornis, Danielsavis and Perplexicervix as claimed. Just as importantly, the matrix includes no unambiguous Neoaves. The importance of this is that there are no data included to challenge the recovery of Pelagornithidae within Galloanseres, which is a viable and the most current hypothesis of their relationships.

571: In a previous review, objection was raised about the inclusion of the PCA and LDA analyses on the grounds that they recovered results known to be incorrect even for neotaxa. The authors dismissed this concern. They stated that they agreed and therefore moved these analyses to the Supplementary Data. Maybe so fig S4, but in fact they retained these in the Methods and in the Results section 778-794 and the results are alluded to in the Discussion in the form of interpretations. It should be deleted altogether.

575: Nettapterornis is labeled Anatalavis in the PCA figure S4.

582-584: the authors state in their response to reviewers that Paakniwatavis is recovered as sister to Anseranatidae plus Anatidae, but here it clearly states “Paakniwatavis … is recovered across all analyses as the sister taxon of Anseranatidae.” What’s more, if sister to Anseranatidae plus Anatidae, then in fig. 5 Anatidae includes Vegavis, Presbyornis, Conflicto, Telmabates, and Nettapterornis. That is going to raise some eyebrows.

536: delete “.;”

537: What “iteration”? Do the authors simply mean they adopted characters from other datasets? If so, then just say so.

552 and 556 are redundant.

585: both?

597: see comments about fig. 5

603-604: is somewhat redundant with 673-674 with regard to Dendrocygna and Thalassornis

611: fhigh

643-645: Rewrite sentence. Did Sun et al use mitochondrial genomes or two genes? Does “which contains almost all extant anseriform taxa used in our analysis” mean that there was sequence data for all the extant species used in Musser and Clarke’s analysis? This is confusing.

646: delete “an”

652, 673, 674: Thalassornis is misspelled

678-683: run-on sentence would be better broken into two, first reporting the results and the second the explanation for the low support.

688-709: the Results section should report the results of this study, but it includes considerable text reviewing the results of other peoples’ analyses. Those ought to go into the Discussion.

696 and elsewhere: anatid should be capitalized only when expressed as the formal name Anatidae

730: to say the crest is prominent obviates the need to say it is present

744-777: I like the two paragraphs on ancestral state reconstruction. It is candid and appropriately circumspect. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for how these traits are mapped onto the phylogeny in figure 5 and how they might be misinterpreted by readers who do not pay sufficient attention to these two paragraphs. Please see my comments on fig 5 below.

752-754: both some jacanids and anhimids have third digits that are longer than the tarsometatarsus (specimens directly available to me, but consult Ridgeway for individual variation). Both are renowned for walking on floating vegetation, not swimming (although screamer chicks notably swim), for which the long toes are specialized. Ref 106 is irrelevant to the authors’ point since it concerns claw curvature, not digital length.

778-794: this paragraph really needs to be deleted, as does figure S3, as articulated in previous review. Even the authors concede “the results are largely inconsistent with other features or the known behaviors [of neotaxa] (i.e., Chauna)”. It is nonsense, so don’t include it.

795: At the risk of sounding gratuitously critical, the writing could be much improved. Much of the discussion is rambling, verbose, rhetorical, speculative, redundant, tangential or irrelevant, and conversational. It reads like a first draft. It would benefit from being shortened with an eye to the elements of style. There are excellent books on the subject that should be read by all whose careers depend on effective communication.

799-800: The relationships of Pelagornithidae and Gastornis are not tested in this study because their purported neoavian sisters were not included in the dataset. It is meaningless to report where they are recovered among taxa that do not represent the diversity of current alternate hypotheses of their relatives. There are three ways to deal with this. First, add representative Neoaves to the dataset and rerun the analyses. Most of these data are already scored in the datasets of the studies from which the current matrix was derived. This would be a valuable exercise even if some data were missing. Moreover, they can be part of a backbone constraint tree. Second, Pelagornithidae and Gastornis could be deleted from this dataset and report. Third and by far the least desirable, the authors could include a caveat that states that Pelagornithidae and Gastornis are recovered as … but their proposed neoavian sisters (include refs) were not included in this study. I realize the third option is the easiest for the authors because it requires virtually no effort, but it is the poorest remedy if a true remedy at all.

826-827: the phrase “especially combined with a reduced form of rhamphothecal lamellae present in extant Anhimidae [22]” should deleted because it implies character state polarity of rhamphothecal grooves in Anseriformes that is not supported by the current analysis. In fact, that the grooves are “reduced” is contradicted by the ancestral state reconstruction. “Incipient” might be a more appropriate descriptor than reduced, but that too implies character state polarity that truly is beyond the scope of this study.

838-840: No, Conflicto, Anachronornis, and Danielsavis all have narrow bills and only Presbyornis and Nettapterornis are known to have wide ones. Brief reference to Anachronornis and Danielsavis is appended to the end of this paragraph (857-859) in what seems to be a minimal effort for resubmission without actual revision that brings this manuscript up to date. The bill of Conflicto is narrow and utterly unlike that of Nettapterornis. The bill of pelagornithids is so manifestly different from that of Anseriformes (instead, like those of neoavian Pelecaniformes and Procellariiformes, e.g., in the presence of rhamphothecal segmentation as well as dimensions) that pelagornithids don’t warrant mention here.

860-888: this entire paragraph is speculative story-telling and should be deleted. The argument as stated in 863-865 is flawed because Anhimidae is not nested within Anseranatidae-Anatidae (it is sister to them instead; fig 5) and because screamers are aquatic foragers, not terrestrial. The presence of the diminutive ridges in the rhamphotheca of screamers is not evidence of developed rhamphothecal grooves as an ancestral state in crown Anseriformes and that they are vestigial in screamers. Lines 875-878 are undoubtedly correct, but without requiring a character state reversal in screamers. I don’t think 865-866 is correct. As stated in previous review, ridges exist in the rhamphotheca of at least some Psittaciformes (lacking pedal webbing) for what it is worth. The excessive digression on non-avian dinosaurs and turtles is tangential and a distraction. The fact is that rhamphothecal grooves have been specialized for a variety of diverse foraging behaviors in Anseriformes and others, including filter-feeding in Anatini (and flamingos), piscivory in Mergini, and grazing in Anserini. Last, 887: it is not news that “feeding ecology has acted as the primary selective force in waterfowl beak shape diversification [19].” Feeding ecology is the primary selective force in beak shape of all birds, without exception. Thermoregulation, display, and phylogenetic inertia play secondary roles in some.

916-918: This sentence adds nothing

920: Dromornithids were not included in this study, so why are they included in “this clade”?

919-927: this paragraph should be reorganized with a topic sentence that the thoracic vertebrae of Paakniwatavis are non-heterocoelous, but distorted. Then, go on to explain why in the context of others.

938: K-Pg, Tertiary is obsolete and the term Paleogene is used elsewhere in this manuscript

953: pseudodontorns

975-979: run-on sentence about calibration points morphs into a string of allusions to preservation, phylogeny, ecology, behavior and biogeography.

Figure 5 needs to be deleted and redone from scratch. Taxa are omitted from the phylogeny. The artist’s reconstruction of Paakniwatavis is patently misleading with regard to the skull, sternum, costae, as detailed in previous review. The ancestral state reconstruction does not discriminate between faint ridges on the palate of screamers (and other birds unmentioned) and the pronounced and highly specialized rhamphothecal lamellae of extant anatids, nor between the semipalmate digits of Anseranas and the fully palmate digits of anatids. It also invokes the evolution of said ‘webbing’ after the divergence of anhimids and Paakniwatavis, contrary to the text.

The provided dryad link returns the message “the page you are looking for does not exist.” I had to request an alternate working link by an Editor of PLoS One. Therein exist raw unsegmented CT slices, and far fewer than the thousands one would expect. These files might be useful for the rare individual who might want to expend the significant time and effort to personally segment the images from scratch, and as such they appropriately need to be deposited and made available. However, they will be of no interest to nearly all readers who will want to verify character descriptions and scoring of segmented structures in the form of stl files. The stl files are not available and they must be.

Fig S4: Anatalavis is labeled. Nettapterornis?

All one need do is scan the tracked changes in manuscript R1 to see that the only substantive changes in R2 are the addition of paragraphs about Anachronornis, Danielsavis, and Perplexicervix, as though this was the only thing that was requested by reviewers. The authors dispute nearly every comment by reviewer 2, rather than conceding that any might be well founded. Furthermore, the updated matrix including Anachronornis, Danielsavis, and Perplexicervix that is alleged (523-525) to be deposited in morphobank is not in fact present in the morphobank folder that is linked to this submission.

I can understand the frustration expressed by the authors in the response to reviewers when they say that they believe they uploaded all the relevant supplementary materials but the reviewer says otherwise. But for whatever reason, the referenced files (i.e., updated matrix and stl files of the specimen) do not exist in morphobank or dryad or the supplementary document. The files that do exist were certainly created by the authors, so it seems possible that if these were updated then the updates were not saved or the proper links to them were not passed along to the reviewers.

Paakniwatavis is a very important fossil that needs to be published. “A tenet of scientific inquiry is reproducibility”( Steenwyk et al 2023 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-023-00620-x). In its present form, this manuscript does not permit reproducibility. I cannot independently verify the results reported in this manuscript without necessary image files and the complete data matrix.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 3

Thierry Smith

10 Mar 2024

PONE-D-22-32093R3A new Paleogene fossil and a new dataset for waterfowl (Aves: Anseriformes) clarify phylogeny, ecological evolution, and avian evolution at the K-Pg Boundary.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Musser,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE.

Please find here the new comments of the reviewers on the basis of your last revision. Both reviewers highlight the significant improvements and key issues you addressed in the present revision. They both provide here few last points that still have to be addressed regarding editorial corrections and references. Please pay attention that the reviewer 2 provides his comments in a separated file, which is in attachment.

Regarding some scientific issues, reviewer 2 put again a lot of efforts to help improving the manuscript and come back to points that have not been addressed in previous revisions. For most points he proposes solutions. Among these points are issues that I consider as particularly important for acceptance, especially regarding PLOS ONE's policy:

- Issues related to character scoring in the phylogeny.

- Characters that are discussed but not verifiable on the present figures.

We invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

I wish to encourage you to pursue your efforts of improving this manuscript, hoping that soon I can definitely accept it.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 24 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Thierry Smith, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I am satisfied to see that the authors finally addressed some of the key issues raised in previous review and only have a few final points that should easily be addressed:

- You have noted that you included Mayr et al. 2023 in your revised description, but neither has the paper been cited nor do I find any reference to it. This is unfortunate, because Mayr et al. (2023) figured and described various elements that were not figured by Houde et al. (2023) and that could be used to differentiate your new taxon (e.g., there are differences in the lengths of the pedal phalanges).

In the comparisons in line 362 ff. you seem to refer to the coracoids figured by Mayr et al. (2023) and this should be mentioned, because in none of the cited publication the coracoid of the taxon has been figured.

- In the systematic heading: please provide the author/publication year for Anseriformes and format the heading according to the other headings

- Throughout the manuscript: it is "impressio musculi"/"impressio m." (not "impression musculi")

- lines 239 and 361 (and perhaps elsewhere): write Paakniwatavis in italics

- line 364: Perplexicervix (not Perplexicervis)

Reviewer #2: I congratulate the authors for making numerous significant improvements in the current revision, particularly with regard to Figure 5. I hope that it is evident from the effort I have invested to make even minor editorial corrections, which themselves could not possibly influence a final decision, that my criticisms have always been intended to be constructive. Paakniwatavis is an important fossil, deserving of the best possible description. I hope the authors and Editor(s) take this to heart as they read my comments below. I apologize in advance for the length and some redundancy. This is a long and complicated paper that warrants it.

Please refer to attachment for remainder of review.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer 2_PONE-D-22-32093_R3.docx

pone.0278737.s013.docx (38.2KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2024 Jul 30;19(7):e0278737. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278737.r008

Author response to Decision Letter 3


24 Apr 2024

Please see uploaded documents for response to reviewers and notes to editor.

Attachment

Submitted filename: April PLOS 1 Anseriform response to reviewers.docx

pone.0278737.s014.docx (4.6MB, docx)

Decision Letter 4

Thierry Smith

8 May 2024

A new Paleogene fossil and a new dataset for waterfowl (Aves: Anseriformes) clarify phylogeny, ecological evolution, and avian evolution at the K-Pg Boundary.

PONE-D-22-32093R4

Dear Dr. Musser,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Thierry Smith, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Thierry Smith

20 May 2024

PONE-D-22-32093R4

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Musser,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Thierry Smith

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Strict consensus trees recovered through parsimony analysis of morphological data.

    Strict consensus tree of 1 MPT of 2,821 steps recovered based on morphological data with Wilaru excluded (CI = 0.291, RI = 0.580, RC = 0.169, HI = 0.709). Bootstrap support values greater than 50% are denoted above branches. Transitions are mapped for selected key nodes based on ancestral state reconstruction. Transitions are only mapped where ancestral state reconstruction is definitive.

    (JPG)

    pone.0278737.s001.jpg (216.5KB, jpg)
    S2 Fig. Strict consensus tree of Strict consensus tree of 1 MPT of 2,928 steps recovered based on morphological data with Wilaru included (CI = 0.281, RI = 0.561, RC = 0.158, HI = 0.719).

    Bootstrap support values greater than 50% are denoted above branches. Transitions are mapped for selected key nodes based on ancestral state reconstruction. Transitions are only mapped where ancestral state reconstruction is definitive.

    (JPG)

    pone.0278737.s002.jpg (212.5KB, jpg)
    S3 Fig. Resulting consensus tree from Bayesian analysis of 719 morphological characters and 158,368 base pairs with Wilaru included (A) and excluded (B).

    Clade credibility values greater than 50% are annotated above branches. Transitions are mapped for selected key nodes based on ancestral state reconstruction. Transitions are only mapped where ancestral state reconstruction is definitive. Extinct taxa are delimited with daggers.

    (TIF)

    S4 Fig. Strict consensus tree of 3 MPTs of 2,898 steps recovered based on morphological data.

    Galloanserine molecular backbone constraints were not used. Wilaru was excluded and Anachronornis, Danielsavis (including specimen NMS.Z.2021.40.2) and Perplexicervix were included (CI = 0.288, RI = 0.584, RC = 0.168, HI = 0.712).

    (JPG)

    pone.0278737.s004.jpg (96.5KB, jpg)
    S5 Fig. Strict consensus tree of 4 MPTs of 2,897 steps recovered based on morphological data.

    Galloanserine molecular backbone constraints were not used. Wilaru and Perplexicervix were excluded and Anachronornis and Danielsavis (including specimen NMS.Z.2021.40.2) were included (CI = 0.288, RI = 0.579, RC = 0.167, HI = 0.712).

    (JPG)

    pone.0278737.s005.jpg (102.5KB, jpg)
    S6 Fig. Strict consensus tree of 27 MPTs of 2,989 steps recovered based on morphological data.

    Galloanserine molecular backbone constraints were used. Wilaru was excluded and Anachronornis, Danielsavis (including specimen NMS.Z.2021.40.2) and Perplexicervix were included (CI = 0.279, RI = 0.565, RC = 0.158, HI = 0.721).

    (JPG)

    pone.0278737.s006.jpg (106.4KB, jpg)
    S7 Fig. Strict consensus tree of 1 MPT of 2,986 steps recovered based on morphological data.

    Galloanserine molecular backbone constraints were used. Wilaru and Perplexicervix were excluded and Anachronornis and Danielsavis (including specimen NMS.Z.2021.40.2) were included (CI = 0.280, RI = 0.561, RC = 0.157, HI = 0.720).

    (JPG)

    pone.0278737.s007.jpg (104.6KB, jpg)
    S1 Appendix

    (DOCX)

    pone.0278737.s008.docx (194.8KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx

    pone.0278737.s009.docx (1.2MB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer 2_PONE-D-22-32093_R1.docx

    pone.0278737.s010.docx (25.8KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.pdf

    pone.0278737.s011.pdf (238.9KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 2_20_2024_Response_to_Reviewers.pdf

    pone.0278737.s012.pdf (126.8KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer 2_PONE-D-22-32093_R3.docx

    pone.0278737.s013.docx (38.2KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: April PLOS 1 Anseriform response to reviewers.docx

    pone.0278737.s014.docx (4.6MB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    CT slices have been deposited on DRYAD under the following DOI: 10.5061/dryad.v15dv4208. All other Supplementary Data is available on Morphobank under Project 4001 at the following link: http://morphobank.org/permalink/?P4001.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES