[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Longisquama update (was: Archosaurs of a feather)
At 19.46 09/03/01, you wrote:
> I don't want to disparage one of the more distinguished journals of our
>but I'm pretty aghast that the Longisquama paper was accepted for
Longisquama intrigues many. Among the most recent issues on this beastie:
1) David Peters in his paper on prolacertiform phylogenesis, considers it
as an advanced prolacertiform close to pterosaurs.
2) M. Benton, D. Unwin and A. Alifanov in the recent book on russian
reptiles even doubt it is an archosaur.
3) Just a ***coincidence***: one of the three main characters quoted by
these authors as diagnostic for Longisquama (elongate manus digit four
equivalent in length to the humerus) is present also in the (still unnamed)
drepanosaurid figured in my 2000 paper on Megalancosaurus.
Absolutely no doubt that they are quite different beasts , but it is
intriguing as well (at least to me).
"Before being enlightened, hard work; after enlightenment, hard work"
Dr. Silvio Renesto
Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra
Università degli Studi di Milano
via Mangiagalli 34
I 20133 Milano