[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Euryapsida question
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
> david peters
> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 10:12 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Euryapsida question
> So, is Euryapsida simply Ichthyosauria + Sauropterygia (sensu Caldwell 1996)?
> Or must it also include Proganosauria and Araeoscelis (sensu Williston 190? I
At present, I'm not certain if it has been formally phylogenetically defined in
the published literature. I know that Merck has this
bigass manuscript lying around unfinished that would include definitions of a
bunch of names in that part of the tree, but he's been
too involved in the day-to-day business of academic administration and such to
get much progress on it lately.
As for those other creatues in particular: I can't recall where they fit on his
tree, but I do not remember them being particularly
affiliated with the euryapsid clade. Many of the old features used to unite
Euryapsida from the Williston era turn out to be much
more widely distributed among diapsids.
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Department of Geology Director, Earth, Life & Time Program
University of Maryland College Park Scholars
Building 237, Room 1117
College Park, MD 20742
Phone: 301-405-4084 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Fax (Geol): 301-314-9661 Fax (CPS-ELT): 301-405-0796