[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Platypuses may be older than we think...
Dann Pigdon wrote:
> It depends on exactly what *Kryoryctes cadburyi* was. I've found at least
> one phylogeny that places it within Tachyglossa:
Little _Kryoryctes_ was certainly a digger (hence the name). But it's a
stretch to say therefore it was a tachyglossan. BTW, I'm not saying that's
what you're saying, Dann; but it may be the reason behind why that website
classifies _Kryoryctes_ as a tachyglossan (albeit with a '?'). I think there's
a _National Geographic_ article that also alludes to it being a Cretaceous
However, in the paper in which _Kryoryctes cadburyi_ was originally described,
Pridmore studiously avoided aligning _Kryoryctes_ with tachyglossids
(echidnas). As they put it: "On the basis of comparisons with Mesozoic and
Cainozoic mammalian taxa in which humeral morphology is known, the Dinosaur
Cove humerus is tentatively attributed to a monotreme. However, several
apparently primitive features of the bone exclude the animal concerned from the
extant families Tachyglossidae and Ornithorhynchidae and suggest that, if it is
a monotreme, it is a stem-group monotreme."
Climb to the top of the charts! Play Star Shuffle: the word scramble
challenge with star power.