PROTEROSUCHIDS AS CROCODILES

["D.W.Naish" <dwn194@soton.ac.uk>]

> Certainly proterosuchians did. They are universally considered to have been
> riparian piscivores.                                         G.O.

No they're not. David Norman once said (something along the lines of...) 'Though
typically assumed to have been river-dwelling fish predators, it seems to me
that they were upland predators that strengthened the hindlimb for moving on
land, rather than for swimming'. 

I'm not convinced that they were riparian, in view of the habits of their
nearest relatives (proterochampsids and erythrosuchids) - I don't think *they*
were aquatic/amphibious. Does anyone know what their taphonomy, facies and/or
associated fauna tell us about their places of burial? Ultimately,
interpretation of these animals as amphibious rests purely on their anatomy.
Best find out what Parrish, Sereno and the others have to say I guess...

"Hello mum... just landed? .....Oh, quiet.."
Well? Get it and win a COMPUTER!

DARREN NAISH