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

Re: A question about Feduccia's claim of convergence



On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 ELurio@aol.com wrote:

> Okay, The reason we haven't seen bipedal reptiles in the Cambrian is that
> they haven't they hadn't evolved yet. If you want to make an attack on
> someone, something as silly as that won't help your case any.

"Anakinsdream" must have meant Permian.

> As to the Early Triassic the same thing. However, there are several bipedal
> crocs from the middle and late Triassic, showing genuine convergance. there
> are also modern lizards that can run bipedally, further convergance.

OOC, were any of these forms obligate bipeds, like _Theropoda_ (including
_Aves_)?

Then there's the recently discovered _Eudibamus_, a primitive ?romeriidan
(_Bolosauridae_). (Was that one obligate or facultative?)

> If you are one of those who consider all amniota to be reptiles or reptile
> derived, then there are at least four cases of convergant bipedality among
> mammals. People and Kangaroos evolved it seperately y'know.

This was just discussed on sci.bio.paleontology, where the anonymous
BANDer mentioned earlier on this list was trying to use the character of
"relatively long hindlimbs" to show a relationship between _Euparkeria_,
_Cosesaurus_, and _Aves_(!)

_____________________________________________________________________________
T. MICHAEL KEESEY
 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>