Re: Sarcosuchus

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 10/26/01 7:27:18 AM EST, tholtz@geol.umd.edu writes:

<< Calling a pholidosaur a crocodilian/crocodylian is analogous to calling a
 pterosaur a dinosaur or a titanothere a rhino: sure, they are close
 relatives (okay, maybe less secure in the case of the pterosaur-dinosaur
 relationship), but they aren't the same things. >>

Then there are idiots like me, who think the term Crocodylia should simply be 
applied to the stem group that comprises all reptiles more closely related to 
modern crocs than to birds (their closest extant relatives). So rauisuchians 
and all those other such-and-suchians would be crocodylians along with the 
"usual" crocs, just very basal ones. After the smoke clears, this is the most 
streamlined, most straightforward, most logical, and most comprehensible 
name/definition for this particular major clade. Which means, of course, that 
>there is no way< that they would ever be accepted.

Note part 16 of Handbuch der Palaeoherpetologie by Rodney Steel is titled 
Crocodylia, and there's Sarcosuchus right there in it. (Not that this means 
anything, of course.)