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

Re: II CLPV talk summaries: Day 2

David Marjanovic wrote-

There's still *Gobipipus*... assuming it has actually been described...

It hasn't. At least I haven't been able to find a citation that wasn't 'in press'.

Tim Williams wrote-

Hey, that last one may be right! If silesaurids are indeed basal dinosauromorphs (or dinosauriforms), and are closer to ornithischians than to other dinosaurs, then the Dinosauria would include silesaurids. In the even remoter possibility that the other two are also correct (theropods-from-shuvosaurs, sauropodomorphs-from-basal archosaurs), then Dinosauria would still remain monophyletic, courtesy of its definition - it would just be expanded to include most of the Archosauria!

Technically true, but I think it'd be time to drop the name if Dinosauria included crocodillians. Despite the fact it has priority over Archosauria...
Incidentally, I don't find it too improbable that one or more currently non-dinosaurian groups will end up inside Dinosauria. Whether it be silesaurids, Marasuchus, Pseudolagosuchus/Lewisuchus, etc.. Most of the relevent analyses have used very low amounts of taxa and characters.
And even the suchian thing seems possible if croc-type ankles are primitive for Archosauria and several groups evolved mesotarsal joints independantly. I already find it likely pterosaurs did.

I know Jalil and Knoll (2002) put _Azendohsaurus_ outside the Dinosauria, but do they (or Parrish) say what it might be.

I don't think Jalil and Knoll did, though I have some good photos of their poster I can't distribute. :)

Mickey Mortimer