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

RE: Protoavis is part pterosauromorph, no details about Novacaesareaia, etc.

Michael Mortimer wrote:

The Protoavis entry is posted, and I'm nearly certain parts belong to an undescribed taxon of basal pterosauromorph.

Now, isn't Pterosauromorpha defined as "Archosauria closer to _Pterodactylus antiquus_ than to _Vultur gryphus_"? This means that the validity of Pterosauromorpha is predicated on pterosaurs being archosaurs. If pterosaurs are not archosaurs but closer to prolacertiforms (non-archosaur archosauromorphs), then Pterosauromorpha is extinguished. Thus, a "basal pterosauromorph" must be some kind of primitive archosaur. The only potential basal pterosauromorph I know of is _Scleromochlus_, and this is contentious. I'm really looking forward to seeing what Atanassov has in stall...

I had to examine Huene's figures of the Coelophysis "type" material now that Eucoelophysis is a silesaurid,

I wonder if ALL the _Eucoelophysis_ material is silesaurid...?

Ever heard of the Mesozoic theropod Novacaesareaia?

Apart form it being a bird, I know nothing about this guy. The name references its discovery in New Jersey. ("Caesarea" is apparently the ancient Roman name for the British island of Jersey: hence, "Nova Caesarea" = New Jersey.) Given that this bird comes from New Jersey, the precise age (Maastrichtian vs Danian) might not be settled. Hence, it may not be Mesozoic.

Any help in adding dinosaurs that were thought to be theropods at one point (like lots of basal sauropodomorphs) is appreciated.

I know _Anchisaurus_ was initially regarded as a theropod. I've got the ref, in which Marsh refers to other basal sauropodomorph genera as "theropods".


Great work Mickey!