[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
On Tue, 23 Apr 1996, Darren Naish wrote:
> Some of you may have noticed that I referred to the 'Pliosauridae' a while
> back: I've yet to see pliosaur monophyly demonstrated without doubt (and what
> I've seen so far makes me doubt it). Colin McHenry has told me that Bakker
> suspects polyphyly of the group also.
Paraphyly for the "Pliosauroidea" and polyphyly for the
"Plesiosauroidea", no? He suggests that Cretaceous "plesiosauroids"
(e.g. Elasmosauridae; anything else?) are derived from Jurassic
"pliosauroids," the Jurassic "plesiosauroids" having left no descendants
and having vacated the long-necked plesiosaur niche.
> DARREN NAISH
Pacific Lutheran University
Tacoma, WA 98447