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

Re: Tanystropheus

>Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 08:27:58 -0500
>From: Robert Margulski <RMarguls@cybercomm.net>
>To: dinosaur@usc.edu
>Subject: Re: Tanystropheus?
>Message-ID: <>

>Please pardon my ignorance. Are you guys talking about

>1) Tanystrosuchus: Kuhn, 1963 (with the long neck)


>2) Tanystropheus: von Meyer, 1855 * (which is not presently
>thought to be dinosaur)


>3) I should go back and check my references and shut up.

>At 07:08 11/19/1998 -0800, Larry Dunn wrote:
>>---"Stewart, Dwight" <Dwight.Stewart@VLSI.com> wrote:
>>> > From: Larry Febo [SMTP:larryf@capital.net]
>>> >
>>> > Tanystropheus,....(got me wondering about this thing again). I don`t
>>> > suppose
>>> > anyone considers it as a possible precursor to prosauropods?
>>> Looking at the skeleton, I was wondering that too.  The teeth look
>>> odd, though.
>>T. isn't a dinosaur though, is it?

If you haven`t deciphered from the above statements, I`m the one who`s
questioning the early ancestry of  the sauropod line. Out of the various
archosauromorphs , I was wondering if anyone considered the prolacertiform
Tanystropheus (as in Van Meyer 1855), or the prolacertiform group in general
to be the precursors to the true archosaurs. (Tantstropheus itself, I know,
dosen`t have the prerequisite antorbital fenestra). They are , after all,
considered as ancestral (by some) to the Pterosaurs, which are themselves