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

Re: ANAPSID PHYLOGENY: IRRELEVANT TO DINOSAURS



At 01:54 PM 10/29/96 -0500, LN Jeff wrote:

>     So what OSTEOLOGICAL reasons are there for seperating m\anapsids 
>from reptiles, other than it means calling mammals reptiles?

Ummm, I think you mean "synapsids".  Anapsids are included in Reptilia.

For some of the key papers on the subject of Synapsid, Anapsid, and Diapsid
relationships, try:

Gauthier, J., A.G. Kluge & T. Rowe. 1988.  Amniote phylogeny and the
importance of fossils.  Cladistics 4: 105-209 (yep, that's right, one
hundred four pages long...).

Laurin, M. & R. Reisz.  1995.  A reevaluation of early amniote phylogeny.
Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society (must check volume and pages)

And the Tree of Life web pages on Amniota.

Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Vertebrate Paleontologist     Webpage: http://www.geol.umd.edu
Dept. of Geology              Email:th81@umail.umd.edu
University of Maryland        Phone:301-405-4084
College Park, MD  20742       Fax:  301-314-9661

"There are some who call me...  Tim."
-- Tim the Enchanter, "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"
---------- subtitle --[Monty Python ik den Holy Grailen]

"Tim?!?  They called me TIM?!?!"
-- Tom the Paleontologist, on seeing "The Ultimate Guide to T. rex" :-)