RE: Protoavis is part pterosauromorph, no details about Novacaesareaia, etc.

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Michael Mortimer wrote:

> The Protoavis entry is posted, and I'm nearly certain parts belong to an 
> undescribed taxon of basal pterosauromorph.

Now, isn't Pterosauromorpha defined as "Archosauria closer to _Pterodactylus 
antiquus_ than to _Vultur gryphus_"?  This means that the validity of 
Pterosauromorpha is predicated on pterosaurs being archosaurs.  If 
pterosaurs are not archosaurs but closer to prolacertiforms (non-archosaur 
archosauromorphs), then Pterosauromorpha is extinguished.  Thus, a "basal 
pterosauromorph" must be some kind of primitive archosaur.  The only 
potential basal pterosauromorph I know of is _Scleromochlus_, and this is 
contentious.  I'm really looking forward to seeing what Atanassov has in 
stall...

> I had to examine Huene's figures of the Coelophysis "type" material now 
> that Eucoelophysis is a silesaurid,

I wonder if ALL the _Eucoelophysis_ material is silesaurid...?

> Ever heard of the Mesozoic theropod Novacaesareaia?

Apart form it being a bird, I know nothing about this guy.  The name 
references its discovery in New Jersey.  ("Caesarea" is apparently the 
ancient Roman name for the British island of Jersey: hence, "Nova Caesarea" 
= New Jersey.)  Given that this bird comes from New Jersey, the precise age 
(Maastrichtian vs Danian) might not be settled.  Hence, it may not be 
Mesozoic.

> Any help in adding dinosaurs that were thought to be theropods at one point 
> (like lots of basal sauropodomorphs) is appreciated.

I know _Anchisaurus_ was initially regarded as a theropod.  I've got the 
ref, in which Marsh refers to other basal sauropodomorph genera as 
"theropods".

> http://students.washington.edu/eoraptor/Home.html

Great work Mickey!

Cheers

Tim