Re: Saltopus... a silesaurid?

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

>  The thing is, several previous studies have speculated that
>  _Lewisuchus_ and _Pseudolagosuchus_ are actually the same taxon -
>  with Nesbitt et al. (2011; the _Asilisaurus_ paper - Supp Info)
>  describing this issue in detail. Although Nesbitt et al. "strongly
>  suspect that _Lewisuchus_ and _Pseudolagosuchus_ are the same taxon",
>  they refrained from formally synonymizing the two.

So... just to make sure... the idea that *Lewisuchus* is actually a 
crurotarsan is history?

>  Another interesting thing in the Benton and Walker paper is that the
>  tree (which is based on characters in Brusatte et al., 2010) finds
>  decent support (61%) for a _Scleromochlus_ + Pterosauria clade
>  (=Pterosauromorpha - although not given here).

Are non-archosauromorphs included in the matrix?

>  Finally, one peculiar aspect of the paper is the usage of ranks in
>  the systematic treatment of _Saltopus_: Infradivision
>  Dinosauromorpha, Subinfradivision Dinosauriformes, etc. I can't see
>  the point of these quasi-Linnaean ranks at all.

Nobody can, except Benton.