Re: Dromomeron and Lagerpeton query

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

> Not an act of randomness, David. An act of illumination. If Nesbitt et  
> al. and Irmis et al. want to put some squamates into the Ornithodira,  
> I thought I'd add another one. And if they want to put a  
> proterchampsid (Lagerpeton and Dromomeron) into the Ornithodira, I  
> thought I'd add another one or two of those, Chanaresuchus and  
> Tropidosuchus.
>
> Yes, I am being ridiculous. But so are they when they try to fit round  
> pegs into square holes. Just proving a point. Anyone can do it.

I still don't see the point or the illumination. Please help me out.

> BTW throwing the pre-amniote Gephyrostegus into the matrix as the  
> outgroup taxon pulls the squamates (Including pterosaurs) out as  
> outgroups - even with the heavy weighting on hind limb characters.

Fine. That's what I wanted to read.

(Of course I can quibble about the choice of *Gephyrostegus*. It's _very far_ 
from Amniota -- it could be an anthracosaur, and is in any case less closely 
related to us than the temnospondyls are, according to the last few analyses, 
not all of which are published yet. But with its short list of autapomorphies, 
it's probably not that bad a choice. In any case, it lies outside the ingroup, 
and that's what's most important.)