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

Re: Unorthodoxies in Reptilian Phylogeny [Romer 1971]

To: dinosaur mailing list <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Subject: Re: Unorthodoxies in Reptilian Phylogeny [Romer 1971]
From: David Peters <davidpeters@att.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:03:26 -0600
Authentication-results: msg-ironport0.usc.edu; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
Reply-to: davidpeters@att.net
Sender: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu

Thanks, first of all, to Mickey M. for the reprint.

Romer states that 

Limnoscelis is a "true primitive reptile."  
True or false?

"Macrocnemus now appears to be definitely a lepidosaur" 
True or false?

Also, what are the original definitions or inclusion sets for Synaptosauria and 
Euryapsida?

David Peters
St. Louis

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Unorthodoxies in Reptilian Phylogeny [Romer 1971]
  - From: Jocelyn Falconnet <j.falconnet@gmail.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Additional material on the Sinornthosaurus venom report
Next by Date: Re: Unorthodoxies in Reptilian Phylogeny [Romer 1971]
Previous by thread: Re: Unorthodoxies in Reptilian Phylogeny [Romer 1971]
Next by thread: Re: Unorthodoxies in Reptilian Phylogeny [Romer 1971]
Indexes: