[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: THIS IS A DINOSAUR LIST!
> NON-DINOSAURIAN LITTLE BEASTIES (ARCHOSAURS NONETHELESS)
> With the intention of provoking some discussion (and so we don't have to read
> so much about astrophysics) I'd like to cast the following questions to all
> members. Can someone explain the priority argument over PODOPTERYX/
> SHAROVIPTERYX? David Peters recently mentioned this beastie, but I lost his
> on it. So, could he please re-iterate or, elsewise, could someone fwd me his
> post on it. This animal was presumably arboreal, but what other sensible
> speculations might be made on its behaviour? And, of course, how does it fit
> into the archosaur phylogenies? Likewise _Longisquama_? Friends and relatives?
I believe George Olshevesky has said that Sharovopteryx (I think this
is the correct term as Podopteryx is a preoccupied name - probably a
related to the little ornithodiran, Scleromochlus. Interestingly,
Scleromochlus seems to be the sister group of the Pterosauria. I have never
description of Sharovopteryx but I dearly hope George is right, it would
be great to have incipient flight in the pterosaur's sister group.
As for Longisquama I wouldn't mind betting that it turns out to be
closely related to the arboreal reptile, Megalancosaurus. Once again I
haven't seen any of the material and
this opinion is based on little more than the similarity in the
triangular sharp snouted skulls of the two beasts. A fertile area for
future research? Note that Megalancosaurus is a basal diapsid perhaps a
little closer to the archosauromorpha than the lepidosauromorpha and is
NOT closely related to the ancestor of the birds as some would contend
(see Renesto (1994) J. Vert. Paleo. 14, 38-52).