[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Archosauromorphs?

>Are thought rhynchosaurs were now definitely in the archosauromorphs, as
>was _Tanystropheus_...

They are definitley in there: they just don't have the otherwise interesting
archosaur "gestalt" for me, but I'm biased.

(The clade with the interesting archosaur "gestalt" is Archosauriformes,
actually.  These other Triassic weirdies branched off earlier, it seems).

>                             -- Dave
>P.S. What are prolacertians?

_Tanystropheus_ and such.

Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Vertebrate Paleontologist
Dept. of Geology
University of Maryland
College Park, MD  20742
Email:Thomas_R_HOLTZ@umail.umd.edu (th81)
Fax: 301-314-9661