Re: Lewisuchus, a Dinosauriform

["Ken Kinman" <kinman@hotmail.com>]

   Thanks to all for the information.  I guess if it is congeneric with
Pseudolagosuchus, then Lewisuchus will have priority.   Which I guess is
best, if they are Lagosuchids, since it would look odd to have a
Pseudolagosuchus in that family.
     But I wonder if there is any chance they might be small herrerasaurs?
In the meantime will leave Pseudolagosuchus as a plesion splitting off just
above Lagosuchidae, but below herrerasaurs.
               ---Ken
*****************************************
> From: "Mickey Mortimer" <Mickey_Mortimer11@msn.com>
> Reply-To: Mickey_Mortimer11@msn.com
> To: <dinosaur@usc.edu>
> Subject: Re: Lewisuchus, a Dinosauromorph?
> Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 11:33:27 -0700
>
> Ken Kinman wrote-
>
> >      Who was it that thought that Lewisuchus was a primitive theropod?
> Why?
> >   And why was this assignment rejected?
> >      If not a theropod, could it still be a primitive dinosauromorph,
> near
> > Lagerpeton or lagosuchids?
>
> George is mostly right, Paul (1988) assigned Lewisuchus to the
> Lagosuchidae,
> which were dinosaurs, but not theropods, in his phylogeny.  Recent studies
> by Arcucci (http://www.cmnh.org/fun/dinosaur-archive/1998Oct/msg00518.html,
> see also the Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs) have indicated it is a
> dinosauriform
> and possibly synonymous with Pseudolagosuchus.  However, Parrish (1993)
> found Lewisuchus to be a suchian based on cranial and tarsal characters.
>
> Mickey Mortimer


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp