[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.



Jaime A. Headden wrote-

Thankfully, Mickey has personally examined the tightly held and secretive
*Protoavis* fossils and compared them to ... what?

Thankfully, Jaime realizes that he has also formed opinions based on wriiten and illustrated data instead of personal examination and presented them on his website.


<I had to examine Huene's figures of the Coelophysis "type" material now that
Eucoelophysis is a silesaurid, and most of it is coelophysoid, with only a few
possible exceptions.>


What's the referrence for Silesauridae and what are the apomorphies for the
clade? And for that matter, what's the referrence for *Eucoelophysis* being
incontrovertibly found to be a member of such a clade? Or is this an abstract?

Where were you to chew out Scott for using the term 'silesaurid'?
http://dml.cmnh.org/2005Aug/msg00175.html
And for that matter, what's the reference for anything being incontrovertibly a member of any clade? Or is this science?
In any case, I agree with Irmis, Nesbitt et al. that Eucoelophysis is a 'silesaurid' after comparing the photos in its description with the figures of Silesaurus. The femur is especially convincing, as Silesaurus shares Eucoelophysis' supposedly apomorphic proximal groove and is nearly identical in shape.


Mickey Mortimer