[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
On Thu, 11 Apr 1996, Adam Yates wrote:
> 3) forked chevrons are primitive for the
> Eusauropoda at least. If this last scenario is correct then hypotheses
> regarding forked chevrons as specialisations for a tripodal feeding
> stance are likely to be incorrect.
Why? While I don't consider it likely that forked chevrons are primitive
for Eusauropoda, might this mean simply that a tripodal feeding stance
was was primitive for Eusauropoda as well?
There is also another possibility that should be added to your list:
4) _Rhoetosaurus_ is an Australian euhelopodid that lost the bone bridge
on the anterior chevrons convergently with neosauropods.
Or Upchurch could be wrong, and there might *be no Neosauropoda*
exclusive of euhelopodids.
> Adam Yates
Pacific Lutheran University
Tacoma, WA 98447
"If you can't convince them, confuse them." -- Harry S. Truman