[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
>I was just wondering if therapsids and pelycosaurs were considered
>acceptable topics for this group? I am fascinated by our proto-
>mammalian forebears as well as dinos. I love the titanosuchians and
>the dinocephalians for their sheer weirdness, and I am especially
>interested in the dromasaurs ( not to be confused with the
>dinosaurian dromaeosaurs :) ) because there seems to be so little
>known about them.
Well, I'd be happy to talk about them on this list, reptilian chauvanist
that I am (the synapsids no longer considered reptiles in a phylogenetic
Also, quite a bit is known about many of the nonmammailan synapsids, through
the work of (among many others) Broom, Romer, Hotton, Hopson, and Reisz
(sp.?). It's just that in the English speaking world, there is very little
popular literature on these beasties, so they have no where near the level
of exposure as dinosaurs and pterosaurs. On the other hand, in Russia the
nonmammlian synapsids have much better popular exposure, and there are kids
books there dedicated to (for example) just Moschops.
Hopefully, someone will do an "Illustrated Encyclopedia of Synapsids" (along
the lines of Norman's "IE Dinosaurs" and Wellnhofer's "IE Pterosaurs").
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Dept. of Geology
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742