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

RE: Isanosaurus question

To: "Dinonet \(E-mail\)" <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Subject: RE: Isanosaurus question
From: "Tracy L. Ford" <dino.hunter@cox.net>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 20:36:10 -0700
In-reply-to: <108.102b8dcd.29eb9c2e@aol.com>
Reply-to: dino.hunter@cox.net
Sender: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On Behalf Of
DRosent288@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 8:00 PM
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Isanosaurus question

If sauropods were already around in the late Triassic, woudn't that pretty
much kill
the idea that sauropods are descended from malanorosaurid prosauropods such
as melanorosaurus or riojasaurus?
 Yep, and there isn't anything wrong with having Prosauropods and Sauropods
being two different groups (IMHO that is). I don't think they were that
closely related.

Tracy L. Ford
P. O. Box 1171
Poway Ca  92074

Follow-Ups:
- RE: Isanosaurus question
  - From: "T. Michael Keesey" <mightyodinn@yahoo.com>

References:
- Isanosaurus question
  - From: DRosent288@aol.com

Prev by Date: Isanosaurus question
Next by Date: Re.:Deinonychus critique ? A COUPLE OF COMMENTS...
Previous by thread: Isanosaurus question
Next by thread: RE: Isanosaurus question
Indexes: