Re: Where have all the ornithischians gone?

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

David Peters wrote:

> Funny how one reads what they want to read and disregard the rest.

Yes, I must apologize here.  For some reason I received a garbled version of 
your message, and misunderstood what you meant.  OK, so you*did* use PAUP, 
and _Lotosaurus_ and _Silesaurus_ came out as ornithischians in your 
analysis.  I'm with you now.

> In other words, I did use PAUP. My feeble use of humor was meant to 
> indicate that no matter what method you use, you'll get the same results if 
> you include these taxa.

Did your analysis include _Ctenosauriscus_?  Lagosuchians?  I'm curious not 
just about what's attracting _Silesaurus_ to _Pisanosaurus_, but what's 
pulling _Silesaurus_ *away* from the basal dinosauromorphs.  And what force 
is splitting _Lotosaurus_ off from the other crocodile-normal- tarsus taxa?

> PAUP nests everything, as you know, so I'm going to get "a hit" somewhere. 
> Among 124 diapsids (with no more than a few in every clade) Lotosaurus 
> comes out closest to Silesaurus and Pisanosaurus.

Like Jaime, I'm curious what characters unite this trio (_Lotosaurus_, 
_Silesaurus_, _Pisanosaurus_).

> PS. Longisquama and Cosesaurus have also been PAUP analyzed. And we've all 
> been waiting five years for the next guy/gal brave enough to test them.

That brave guy would be Senter.  His analysis is the most recent (2004) to 
look at _Longisquama_.  He found_Longisquama_ to be outside the Neodiapsida 
(so well outside of the archosaurs), along with with the drepanosaurids.  
Senter didn't examine _Cosesaurus_ directly, but it looks like a fairly 
conventional prolacertiform.

Cheers

Tim