[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Are dinosaurs really reptiles? (2)
What series of taxa do you all think precedes Petrolacosaurus?
If by "precede" you mean "are sauropsids less closely related to the diapsid
crown-group than *Petrolacosaurus* is", then I, too, will defer to Müller &
Reisz (2006), with the caveat that they did not order any of their
multistate characters. After all, this is the only analysis so far that has
taken all "protorothyridids" into account. (All their characters and taxa,
and many more, will be in my thesis, but my thesis won't produce results
anytime soon.) Also note that Müller & Reisz did not only use parsimony, but
also Bayesian analysis -- which finds most of the "protorothyridids" closer
to Captorhinidae than to Diapsida.
If not, then please explain what you mean -- surely you don't simply mean
"are older" by "precede"?