RE: II CLPV talk summaries: Day 2

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Jaime A. Headden wrote:

>   Of these features, *Pisanosaurus* shares with *Silesaurus* 1, 3-6 & 8. 
> Six out of eleven ain't bad, but it's too close to half for my comfort.

Actually, when I alluded to the idea that _Pisanosaurus_ might be a 
silesaurid, it was a little tongue-in-cheek.  I'm pretty sure it's a 
dinosaur.  We'll soon be seeing silesaurids in our sleep...

> The anterior dentary is apparently intact as in said to bear a predentary 
> structure (which is not present (Casamiquela, 1967), but may be broken and 
> could very well exhibit a "silesaurid" rostral hook

Have you tried Photoshop?   :-)

> This means we may get *Protoavis* attached to a non-dinosaur avecephalan, 
> which may suit the "Rubenites" very well.

It shouldn't suit them at all - avicephalans are not even archosaurs, and 
may not even be archosauromorphs.  Senter (who erected the term Avicephala) 
found that these guys were not even neodiapsids, so (if true) avicephalans 
are no closer to birds than they are to lizards or snakes.  There is a 
strong hint of irony in the name "Avicephala"...

> In the case of a single specimen of collected bones (*Alwalkeria*) [snip]  
> The vertebrae, with elongated but apparently typical cervicals, are seen in 
> "poposaurid"/"rauisuchid"/"teratosaurid" rauisuchians (incl. 
> *Postosuchus*).

And _Gojirasaurus_.

>   Why can't it be the rest of the plesiosaurian skeleton of 
> *Dravidosaurus*? Come on, Tim, use your imagination ;).

My imagination has been taxed enough trying to visualize _Dravidosaurus_ as 
a stegosaur.  Gimme a break!  ;-)

Cheers

Tim