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

Re: Sharovipteryx

> 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"