Re: Sharovipteryx

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 5/23/00 6:56:13 PM EST, dbensen@gotnet.net writes:

<< I don't have any really strong opinions about the matter either. The
 prolacertiforms were a very diverse bunch (just compare Prolacerta to
 Drepanosaurus) and they may well have given rise to such different creatures
 as Sharovipteryx and Longuisquama. >>

Given the presence of a furcula and featherlike dermal structures, not to 
mention a fairly theropodlike skull, it is surprising that there is so much 
resistance to considering Longisquama to be a small theropodomorph. 
>Anything< but (Heaven forbid!) that it should be a kind of small, arboreal 
theropod.