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

Re: Sharovipteryx



>>     I would be interested to know if you regard Sharovipteryx as a
prolacertiform or as an archosauriform (perhaps an ornithodiran, sensu
stricto).<<
I agree with David Peters and say that Sharovipteryx was a prolacertiform
(and very, very similar to a pterosaur).  If we only knew about the skull, I
bet the little guy would be grouped with the pterosaurs (?).

>>The same question could be asked concerning Longisquama.  In the
archosauromorph classification I posted yesterday, I preliminarily placed
them both as prolacertiforms, but I'm certainly not strongly wed to this
position. <<
I don't have any really strong opinions about the matter either. The
prolacertiforms were a very diverse bunch (just compare Prolacerta to
Drepanosaurus) and they may well have given rise to such different creatures
as Sharovipteryx and Longuisquama.

Dan