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

RE: "The X Digit"...a Pteroid bone??



 

George wrote:

>A very well-designed Web site that features Dave's pterosaur phylogeny.
>Good
>enough to publish anywhere, in my opinion. He argues that pterosaurs are
>derived prolacertiforms, not archosaurs, a viewpoint that is winning
>converts
>in high places.

I agree, the fact that nearly all the characters that tie pterosaurs to the
Dinosauromorpha are related to a single functional complex (hind limb
morphology)whereas all else about the body (where it hasn't been transformed
beyond recognition)seems to say 'basal archosauromorph' if not
"prolacertyiform" is highly suggestive that phylogenetic analysis is being
led astray (see the article by Chris Bennett in Zoo. J. Linn. Soc a few
years back).Obviously we need some critters from way down on the pterosaur
stem. Perhaps as prolacertiforms become better known (I see a lot of ?'s in
the data matrices published to date) we will be better able to test the
prolacertiform-pterosaur hypothesis.   

cheers
Adam Yates