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

Re: Hanson 2006, Mortimer, Baeker response

Ah, but they are sauropods, as you said. That's all I'm saying.

It's a category.

On Jun 12, 2006, at 8:39 AM, Mike Taylor wrote:

David Peters writes:
As in dinosaurs, in pterosaurs we've gotten to the point where very
few really strange lineages are showing up. Most, if not all, dinos
and pteros found today can be placed into existing slots.

I don't buy this, at least for dinosaurs. In the sauropods alone, you have _Tendaguria_, _Agustinia_ and at least one more as-yet unnamed taxon, none of which fit at all convincingly into any of the established clades less inclusive than Neosauropoda. I think there is _a lot_ still to be discovered -- not just minor tweaks on the taxa we know and love already, but dramatic departures.

_/|_ ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <mike@miketaylor.org.uk> http:// www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "And they also threw this in my face: they said, 'Anyway, you know
good and well, it would be beyond the will of God and the grace
of the king'" -- Jimi Hendrix, _A Merman I Should Turn to Be_