Re: Rhoetosaurus

["Nicholas J. Pharris" <pharrinj@PLU.edu>]

On Thu, 11 Apr 1996, Adam Yates wrote:

> 3) forked chevrons are primitive for the 
> Eusauropoda at least. If this last scenario is correct then hypotheses 
> regarding forked chevrons as specialisations for a tripodal feeding 
> stance are likely to be incorrect.

Why?  While I don't consider it likely that forked chevrons are primitive 
for Eusauropoda, might this mean simply that a tripodal feeding stance 
was was primitive for Eusauropoda as well?

There is also another possibility that should be added to your list:

4) _Rhoetosaurus_ is an Australian euhelopodid that lost the bone bridge 
on the anterior chevrons convergently with neosauropods.

Or Upchurch could be wrong, and there might *be no Neosauropoda* 
exclusive of euhelopodids.

> Adam Yates   

Nick Pharris
Pacific Lutheran University
Tacoma, WA 98447
(206)535-8204
PharriNJ@PLU.edu

"If you can't convince them, confuse them." -- Harry S. Truman