[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
> 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).
For what reasons actually?
> It is surely one of what may have been a series of
> thousands of species of small, arboreal Triassic archosaurs, all hidden
> the fossil record by preservational bias.
Imagine what sort of variaties could have existed, animals similair to
Longisquama and Sharovpteryx, but also much stranger genera. Certainly,
without a second of doubt, these will be discovered in the future and my bet
is that China will prove to be a goldmine for these sort of things. Just
look at the quality of the complete specimens, such as Turfanosuchus and
Hsisosuchus! Especially the latter is quite a delicate specimen, but it is
preserved intact, on a single slab! Very similair in condition to the
aboreal specimens of Russia that we are talking about.