[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Archosauromorph classification & Thecodonts
> From: chris brochu [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 3:12 PM
> > Likewise, I will leave Longisquamidae and Sharovipterygidae as
> >incertae sedis within this order unless it shown they belong elsewhere.
> >They appear to be archosauromorphs,
> I'm not sure I agree. I've seen Longisquama up close, and most of the
> "characters" shared in common with archosauromorphs could be just
> as easily
> interpreted as postmortem damage. It's probably a diapsid of some sort,
> but that's as far as I would go. One more reason why I no longer use
> Linnean ranks.
More on _Longisquama_ in the VERY NEAR future. However, I have had access
to some amazingly good closeup photos of the specimen, and can say this in
agreement with Chris:
This specimen does not show any apparent archosauromorph characters, much
less archosaurian. Even champsosaurs and rhynchosaurs have more apparent
derived features shared with archosaurs than this puppy.
Diapsida incertae sedis, for now, until I can get Merck to work...
P.S. The Galapagos Archipelago is amazing place to visit!
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Department of Geology Director, Earth, Life & Time Program
University of Maryland College Park Scholars
College Park, MD 20742
Phone: 301-405-4084 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Fax (Geol): 301-314-9661 Fax (CPS-ELT): 301-314-7843