[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Pre-archosaur...was : What came before Eoraptor?
From: Chris Bennett <email@example.com>
To: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>
Date: Monday, April 10, 2000 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: Pre-archosaur...was : What came before Eoraptor?
>In my 1996(?) paper on the phylogenetic position of the Pterosauria, I
>argued that the phylogenetic position of the Pterosauria depends on the
>interpretation of a suite of hindlimb characters. If they are interpreted
>as synapomorphies with the Dinosauria, then the Pterosauria is the major
>sister group of the Dinosauria. However, if the suite of characters are
>shared with the Dinosauria, then the Pterosauria are much further down the
>cladogram. In my analysis (assuming those characters were homoplasic
>that homologous) the Pterosauria came out as the sister group of
>Erythrosuchia + everything else up the cladogram. I noted in that paper
>that if that cladogram was correct, then the Ornithodira as defined by
>Sereno would be much more inclusive than he intended. David Peters
>presumably either noted my comment or came to the same conclusion
I see now. Then Dave Peters is stating that the advanced mesotarsal ankle
arose on two separate occasions.
Couldn`t there be an alternative path, like: prolacertilian to pterosaur to
lagosuchian (secondarilly flightless) to dinosaur?
Or even what I propose, the more radical prolacertilian to pterosaur to
avian to various secondarilly flightless theropod groups?