[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Archosaur origins (was reply to Euparkeria)

To: Pieter.Depuydt@rug.ac.be
Subject: Re: Archosaur origins (was reply to Euparkeria)
From: Jeffrey Martz <martz@holly.ColoState.EDU>
Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 12:06:47 -0600 (MDT)
Cc: dinosaur@usc.edu, th81@umail.umd.edu
In-reply-to: <199705060824.KAA20183@allserv.rug.ac.be>
Reply-to: martz@holly.ColoState.EDU
Sender: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu

> When I read the older literature about the origins of Archosauria proper, two 
> different theories/points of view seemed to emerge.
> First, there is the theory of Proterosuchia (is this still a valid 
> monophyletic taxon?)
 
     As I recall, erythrosuchids used to be included witht he
proterosuchids, in which case the group would be paraphyletic. Whether
this is invalid or not is a whole nother can of worms...       
    
LN Jeff
O-

References:
- Archosaur origins (was reply to Euparkeria)
  - From: Pieter.Depuydt@rug.ac.be

Prev by Date: Re: Evolution programs (was: Reevolving bones)
Next by Date: Re: Reevolving bones?
Previous by thread: Archosaur origins (was reply to Euparkeria)
Next by thread: ROM'S _T. REX_
Indexes: