[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: where do proterochampsids belong?
----- Original Message -----
From: "david peters" <email@example.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 7:46 PM
Here's what the literature says:
(if I missed any let me know).
Proterochampsidae derived from Erythrosuchidae, outside of Parasuchia +
I assume you don't mean "derived from" literally, but that instead you mean
that Erythrosuchidae is the sistergroup of (Proterochampsidae + (Parasuchia
+ Suchia)) (or that Proterochampsidae is "more derived than"
Erythrosuchidae... though this common wording isn't automatically correct).
Let's illustrate that more graphically...
`--Crurotarsi... sorry, Crocodylotarsi
Benton and Clark 1988, Benton 1990, Bennett 1996
Proterochampsidae derived from Erythrosuchidae, outside of Euparkeria
I guess this means...
...which is identical to the findings of Gauthier, except for the positions
of *Euparkeria* and Ornithosuchidae (not shown).
Proterochampsidae derived from Euparkeria, outside of Ornithodira +
Differs from Benton & Clark, Benton and Bennett in one feature -- *E.* and
Proterochampsidae have switched places.
Proterochampsidae derived from Euparkeria, outside of Ornithodira
Identical to the above, no? Or did he find Proterochampsidae inside
Crurotarsi (an arrangement I've never heard of)?
Proterochampsidae and Euparkeria are basal to all other traditional
archosauriformes (proterosuchids and erythrosuchids not listed).
P. and *E.* in this order? If so, then this is identical to Benton's earlier
analyses. If it's the other way around, it's identical to Sereno's.
Question is: which is correct?
So we have here two almost identical phylogenetic hypotheses. Two decide,
I'd look for an analysis that includes animals like *Turfanosuchus* and
*Yonghesuchus*. Therefore, for the time being, I'd go with what I wrote
about the *Yonghesuchus* paper, with the caveat that that paper mentions
only a few characters and doesn't include an analysis.