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

Re: Phyl tax misunderstandings (was Re: tetrapoda) (LONG)

To: Dinogeorge@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Phyl tax misunderstandings (was Re: tetrapoda) (LONG)
From: Stanley Friesen <sarima@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 10:23:26 -0800
Cc: th81@umail.umd.edu, jwoolf@erinet.com, dinosaur@usc.edu
In-reply-to: <971114215817_-54485390@mrin58.mail.aol.com>
Reply-to: sarima@ix.netcom.com
Sender: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu

At 09:58 PM 11/14/97 -0500, Dinogeorge@AOL.COM wrote:
>Tom, I think you might have abandoned your taxon a bit too early...

Indeed. It has occurred to me that the non-arctometatarsalian condition in
oviraptorids, at least, may be a reversal, not a plesiomorphy.  In which
case the arctometatarsal condition in the caenagnathids would share an
origin with that of the bullatosaur+tyrannosaur clade.


[And I *still* not convinced that the mononykids are really birds].

--------------
May the peace of God be with you.         sarima@ix.netcom.com
                                          sfriesen@netlock.com

References:
- Re: Phyl tax misunderstandings (was Re: tetrapoda) (LONG)
  - From: Dinogeorge@aol.com

Prev by Date: Re: Obligatory parental nest attendance.
Next by Date: Re: Eating a Nautilus (attn: Gothgrrl)
Previous by thread: Re: Phyl tax misunderstandings (was Re: tetrapoda) (LONG)
Next by thread: Re: Phyl tax misunderstandings (was Re: tetrapoda) (LONG)
Indexes: