TL;DR: ChiapPE et al. as discussed by the authors discuss the relationship between birds and other theropod Dinosaurs and discuss the importance of birds in the development of modern birds and their relationships with other Dinosaurs.
Abstract: Preface Part I: The Archosaurian Heritage of Birds 1. The Debate on Avian Ancestry: Phylogeny, Function, and Fossils LAWRENCE M. WITMER 2. Cladistic Approaches to the Relationships of Birds to Other Theropod Dinosaurs JAMES M. CLARK, MARK A. NORELL, AND PETER J. MAKOVICKY Part II: Taxa of Controversial Status 3. The Enigmatic Birdlike Dinosaur Avimimus portentosus: Comments and a Pictorial Atlas PATRICIA VICKERS-RICH, LUIS M. CHIAPPE, AND SERGEI KURZANOV 4. The Cretaceous, Short-Armed Alvarezsauridae: Mononykus and Its Kin LUIS M. CHIAPPE, MARK A. NORELL, AND JAMES M. CLARK 5. Alvarezsaurid Relationships Reconsidered FERNANDO E. NOVAS AND DIEGO POL Part III: The Mesozoic Aviary: Anatomy and Systematics 6. Archaeopterygidae (Upper Jurassic of Germany) ANDRZEJ ELZANOWSKI 7. The Discovery and Study of Mesozoic Birds in China ZHOU ZHONGHE AND HOU LIANHAI 8. Sinornis santensis (Aves: Enantiornithes) from the Early Cretaceous of Northeastern China PAUL C. SERENO, RAO CHENGGANG, AND LI JIANJUN 9. The Birds from the Lower Cretaceous of Las Hoyas (Province of Cuenca, Spain) JOSE L. SANZ, BERNARDINO P. PEREZ-MORENO, LUIS M. CHIAPPE, AND ANGELA D. BUSCALIONI 10. Noguerornis gonzalezi (Aves) from the Early Cretaceous of Spain LUIS M. CHIAPPE AND ANTONIO LACASA-RUIZ 11. Skeletal Morphology and Systematics of the Cretaceous Euenantiornithes (Ornithothoraces: Enantiornithes) LUIS M. CHIAPPE AND CYRIL A. WALKER 12. Vorona berivotrensis, a Primitive Bird from the Late Cretaceous of Madagascar CATHERINE A. FORSTER, LUIS M. CHIAPPE, DAVID W. KRAUSE, AND SCOTT D. SAMPSON 13. Osteology of the Flightless Patagopteryx deferrariisi from the Late Cretaceous of Patagonia (Argentina) LUIS M. CHIAPPE 14. Enaliornis, an Early Cretaceous Hesperornithiform Bird from England, with Comments on other Hesperornithiformes PETER M. GALTON AND LARRY D. MARTIN 15. The Mesozoic Radiation of Neornithes SYLVIA HOPE 16. A Review of Avian Mesozoic Fossil Feathers ALEXANDER W. A. KELLNER 17. The Track Record of Mesozoic Birds and Pterosaurs: An Ichnological and Paleoecological Perspective MARTIN G. LOCKLEY AND EMMA C. RAINFORTH Part IV: Functional Morphology and Evolution 18. Bone Microstructure of Early Birds ANUSUYA CHINSAMY 19. Locomotor Evolution on the Line to Modern Birds STEPHEN M. GATESY 20. Basal Bird Phylogeny: Problems and Solutions LUIS M. CHIAPPE Contributors Index
TL;DR: Modern avian flight function and perching capability must have evolved in small-bodied birds in inland habitats not long after Archaeopteryx.
Abstract: Fossil bird skeletons discovered in Lower Cretaceous lake deposits in China shed new light on the early evolution of avian flight and perching. The 135 million-year-old sparrow-sized skeletons represent a new avian, Sinornis santensis, n. gen. n. sp., that preserves striking primitive features such as a flexible manus with unguals, a footed pubis, and stomach ribs (gastralia). In contrast to Archaeoperyx, however, Sinornis exhibits advanced features such as a broad sternum, wing-folding mechanism, pygostyle, and large fully reversed hallux. Modern avian flight function and perching capability, therefore, must have evolved in small-bodied birds in inland habitats not long after Archaeopteryx.
TL;DR: This paper conducts a detailed morphological review of both holotype specimens of C. yandica and S. santensis and concludes that the two birds constitute valid and distinct branches in the diverse enantiornithine evolutionary radiation.
Abstract: The taxonomy of the first two enantiornithine birds named from the Early Cretaceous of China, Cathayornis yandica and Sinornis santensis, has remained controversial despite the relative completeness of both holotype specimens. This is because C. yandica is regarded as a junior synonym of S. santensis by some researchers, and as a distinct taxon by others. This question is revisited in this paper; in order to determine the validity of C. yandica, we conduct a detailed morphological review of both holotype specimens. Despite proposed synonymy we argue that there are clear and distinct anatomical differences between the two taxa; indeed our morphological observations demonstrate that the two birds constitute valid and distinct branches in the diverse enantiornithine evolutionary radiation. Of course, and like many other groups of fossil vertebrates, the diverse Cretaceous bird lineage Enantiornithes requires taxonomic revision yet in the case of C. yandica and S. santensis we attribute much of the confusion to: (1) incomplete specimens being designated as holotypes, and (2) the absence of clear morphological character-based taxon diagnoses founded on rigorous anatomical comparisons.