[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re:prolacertiformes as arboreal leapers,.
From: Renesto Silvio <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Friday, March 16, 2001 10:38 AM
Subject: Re:prolacertiformes as arboreal leapers,.
>>Dave Peters calls the prolacertiforms "terrestrial" forms. Although by
>>(I`m sure) he didn`t mean they didn`t climb trees, I would go one step
>>further, and call ,the majority of the group "arboreal". IMHO.
>I also agree with you and George that David is right about strict
>relationships between prolacertiform and pterosaurs.
> I find difficult however to find *most* of them arboreal (it is OK for
>Longisquama; Sharovipteryx? I dont' know, the 6m long Tanystropheus
> On some prolacertiforms (= Macrocnemus, Langobardisaurus and Cosesarus) I
>basically share David Peters opinion: they were probably facultative
>bipedal runners in the manner of some modern lizards (David and I have a
>submitted paper on this, together with Fabio dalla Vecchia).
PS....I`ve seen pictures of Tanystropheus depicted in a bipedal stance as
well. In primates, bipedalism came about as a consequence of arborality.
Perhaps a parallel development was the case for Prolacertiforms???