Re: Longisquama

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 3/11/03 5:16:55 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
davidrpeters@earthlink.net writes:

<< As in Sharovipteryx, there is no way that Longisquama was a quadruped.
 The hind limb is twice the length of the forelimb, which due to toro
 length and elevation, barely reached the level of the knee when bipedal. >>

I've always pictured Longisquama as a kind of small biped, contrary to 
Sharov's original reconstruction. I once even classified it as a basal 
theropod (1991, 1992). It is surely one of what may have been a series of 
thousands of species of small, arboreal Triassic archosaurs, all hidden from 
the fossil record by preservational bias.