Re: II CLPV talk summaries: Day 2

[Michael Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>]

David Marjanovic wrote-

> There's still *Gobipipus*... assuming it has actually been described...

It hasn't.  At least I haven't been able to find a citation that wasn't 'in 
press'.

Tim Williams wrote-

> Hey, that last one may be right!  If silesaurids are indeed basal 
> dinosauromorphs (or dinosauriforms), and are closer to ornithischians than 
> to other dinosaurs, then the Dinosauria would include silesaurids.  In the 
> even remoter possibility that the other two are also correct 
> (theropods-from-shuvosaurs, sauropodomorphs-from-basal archosaurs), then 
> Dinosauria would still remain monophyletic, courtesy of its definition - it 
> would just be expanded to include most of the Archosauria!

Technically true, but I think it'd be time to drop the name if Dinosauria 
included crocodillians.  Despite the fact it has priority over 
Archosauria...
Incidentally, I don't find it too improbable that one or more currently 
non-dinosaurian groups will end up inside Dinosauria.  Whether it be 
silesaurids, Marasuchus, Pseudolagosuchus/Lewisuchus, etc..  Most of the 
relevent analyses have used very low amounts of taxa and characters.
And even the suchian thing seems possible if croc-type ankles are primitive 
for Archosauria and several groups evolved mesotarsal joints independantly.  
I already find it likely pterosaurs did.

> I know Jalil and Knoll (2002) put _Azendohsaurus_ outside the Dinosauria, 
> but do they (or Parrish) say what it might be.

I don't think Jalil and Knoll did, though I have some good photos of their 
poster I can't distribute. :)

Mickey Mortimer