Re: PROTEROSUCHIDS AS CROCODILES

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 96-01-31 10:43:21 EST, dwn194@soton.ac.uk (D.W.Naish)
writes:

>> 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...
>
>

The common ancestors of proterosuchids, erythrosuchids, and proterochampsids
were probably not riparian predators--and I guess one would have to call them
proterosuchians--but proterosuchids almost certainly were. I don't know of
any proterosuchids found in sediments not laid down under water--but that's
rather meaningless as a guide to their lifestyles, anyway.