[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
> I read somewhere that _Sharovipteryx_ is a member of the
> Prolacertiformes i.e. a diapsid and close relative of the prolacertids
> and tanystropheids. I can't remember the author or the source
> (sorry!). I guess the pterosaur theory is passe... (at least
> according to this study).
Well, David Peters is one of the main advocates of a _Sharovipteryx_-pterosaur
link right now, and he wants pterosaurs as part of the Prolacertiformes.
That _Sharovipteryx_ might be related to prolacertids etc is therefore entirely
compatible with this version of pterosaur phylogeny.
I've only just got a copy of the Discover pterosaur article. What can I say but
"Wow!", Steve Kirk's new stuff is the business.
"Dennis, our lives are in your hands and you've got butter-fingers"