[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Island-dwelling dinosaurs (was Re: Gargantuavis neck vertebra)
> Dr Ronald Orenstein <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > I was under the impression that the placentals-beat-marsupials argument had
> > been pretty well rejected, with evidence that the reverse may
> > have happened on Australia.
> As far as Australia is concerned, this hinges on the identity of a
> single molar, named _Tingamarra porterorum_, from the Eocene of
> Australia. The tooth has been regarded as coming from a "condylarth",
> and therefore a non-volant eutherian.
At some point, I think I had heard that Australia has been a long-time host
of...I want to say Rodents, but I'm not sure that's the right clade.
Basically, I thought *Tingmarra* wasn't the only placental (or if its not a
placental, that there were still placentals on the landmass)
> If true, it indicates that
> placentals were once established in Australia, but were beaten out by
> marsupials. However, not everyone is convinced that _Tingamarra_ is a
> placental. One suggestion is that the tooth comes from an
> ameridelphian marsupial (also known from the Tingamarra fauna). As
> you might appreciate, this is a somewhat hotly contested topic. ;-)