From: "David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
Reply-To: david.marjanovic@gmx.at
To: "The Dinosaur Mailing List" <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Subject: Fw: Scleromochlus
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 16:13:57 +0200
Yet another idea of what *Scleromochlus* is... (who'd have thought it may
be
a croc, sensu latissimo?)
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Peters" <pterosaurs@earthlink.net>
To: <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 1:01 PM
Subject: re: Scleromochlus
> Dear David,
>
> I understand that Scleromochlus is a *bitch* to interpret. I have never
> seen it. Benton (1999) provided the most recent figures of it... and
> those convinced me (but I could not convince him) that it is a basal
> Suchian, most closely related to Gracilisuchus (Romer 1972), an early
> biped from that clade. The temporal region would be important to have,
> because the quadrate would lean forward, but it is too poorly preserved
> to interpret.
>
> The skull is wide and low (a clincher!). The AOF is deep and sharply
> ridged dorsally. The skull sutures are all a good match. The neck is
> short. The scapula is small. The pelvis is similar in nearly all
> respects, but the sacral count is higher in Scleromochlus. Dorsal armor
> is present (a clincher!). Hemal spines are normal (= non-pterosaurian).
> The carpals are absent. The manus is small. The fifth pedal digit is
> reduced to a spike (a clincher!). Scleromochlus is simply more derived
> (and a better biped), except in the tarsus. Gracilisuchus has fewer
> tarsal elements, but the calcaneum with a well-developed heel is in
> there.
>
> Share this with the list if you wish.
>
> David Peters