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

Re: Quo vadis, T. rex? [long]

>The peculiar structures seen in _Longisquama_, which strongly resemble (but
>are not--or at least not yet) feathers, are the only evidence we have of
> what pre-feathers may have looked like. This is from the Late Triassic, and
>if they _are_ pre-feathers, then _Longisquama_ should perhaps be considered a

Forgive my ignorance, but is this critter considered a dinosaur?  It
was my understanding that when one starts getting into the Late
Triassic, we start getting awfully close to the thecodont/dinosaur
split.  At this range, do the associations begin to be muddled?
Could it be argued that the likelyhood of _Longisquama_ is a separate
thecodont lineage?  If so, then Archy and it's decendants (assuming
for a moment that BCF is acccurate) might not be dinosaurs by any
definition that the cladists would use.  Personally, I don't like the
idea, but I figure it had to be asked.