Longisquama closer to theropods than sauropods?

["Matthew Bonnan" <mbonnan@hotmail.com>]

DinoGeorge said:
Longisquama would be close to the common
> ancestry of >all theropods and birds<, including maniraptorans of course, 
> and
> closer to theropods/birds than are, say, sauropods (which have neither
> feathers nor furcula as far as we know).

Well, actually Hatcher reported what might be furculae for Diplodocus in his 
1901 monograph on the Carnegie specimen (Hatcher, 1901. Diplodocus (Marsh): 
it's osteology, taxonomy, and probable habits, with a restoration of the 
skeleton. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum, Vol1. No1. Pg.41 w/Illustration).  
In any case, since sauropods are saurischians and share a number of 
anatomical features with theropods, why do you think _Longisquama_ would be 
closer to theropods and birds than sauropods?  Would you stick _Longisquama_ 
as a sister group to theropods and birds, and if so, where would the 
Sauropodamorpha go?  Something different?  Is _Longisquama_ a saurischian, 
then, by your definition?

Matt Bonnan


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com