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

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

On Sat, 25 Aug 2001 Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:

> With regard to integument, I was referring to that of possible >arboreal
> prolacertiforms<. If pterosaurs are prolacertiform descendants, then it is
> quite possible that some prolacertiforms already had the kind of hairlike
> "pelage" that is well known in pterosaurs.

IIRC, there are possible hairlike structures in _Cosesaurus_.

> This may, in turn, have also appeared other prolaceriforms, such as
> those from which those animals widely known as archosaurs evolved,

Are you using Prolacertiformes as a doubly paraphyletic group of
non-pterosaurian, non-archosauriform archosauromorphs?

Has it ever been defined as a clade? Clade(_Prolacerta_ <-- _Passer_,
_Crocodylus_) might work well, although then it could be synonymous with

> and it may have been preserved in the arboreal
> lineages that led to birds and dinosaurs. Secondary loss of hairlike
> "pelage," or conversion to smooth scutes, might be expected in aquatic
> reptiles such as proterosuchians, so absence of hairlike "pelage" in these
> groups does not preclude its existence in ancestral prolacertiforms.

Interesting, although that doesn't explain the lack of hairlike pelage in
terrestrial forms such as ceratopsids, hadrosaurids, titanosaurs, and

 Home Page               <http://dinosauricon.com/keesey>
  The Dinosauricon        <http://dinosauricon.com>
   personal                <keesey@bigfoot.com> --> <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
    Dinosauricon-related    <dinosaur@dinosauricon.com>
     AOL Instant Messenger   <Ric Blayze>
      ICQ                     <77314901>
       Yahoo! Messenger        <Mighty Odinn>