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

Re: Archosaur Origins...was:MESENOSAURUS ERRATA.



> Interesting George,..and though I agree with you that prolacertiformes
could
> be ancestral to archosaurs, I don`t believe Dave Peters sees it that way.

Prolacertiformes and Archosauriformes are commonly seen as sister groups (e.
g. in Benton's Vertebrate Palaeontology).

> I get the impression that his claim is that Pterosaurs are not archosaurs,
and
> don`t belong to the group Ornithodira.

Ornithodira is defined as (*Pterodactylus* + *Passer) -- unless this
definition is changed (which is probable) when the PhyloCode is implemented,
pterosaurs are always in Ornithodira.

> I`m curious,...are you implying that since birds have a prolacertilian
> ancesty, they might be considered close sister group to pterosaurs?

Unless Prolacertiformes in its contents as percieved now is paraphyletic to
either Archosauriformes (suggested by AFAIK nobody, but I'm not well
informed about BCF) or birds (suggested by AFAIK Feduccia alone), birds
don't have a prolacertilian ancestry and are closer to crocodiles than to
pterosaurs.