[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
In a message dated 3/11/03 5:16:55 AM Pacific Standard Time,
<< As in Sharovipteryx, there is no way that Longisquama was a quadruped.
The hind limb is twice the length of the forelimb, which due to toro
length and elevation, barely reached the level of the knee when bipedal. >>
I've always pictured Longisquama as a kind of small biped, contrary to
Sharov's original reconstruction. I once even classified it as a basal
theropod (1991, 1992). It is surely one of what may have been a series of
thousands of species of small, arboreal Triassic archosaurs, all hidden from
the fossil record by preservational bias.