Jump to content

Welcome to Phylogeny Explorer Project

Welcome to Phylogeny Explorer Project, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be apart of Phylogeny Explorer Project by signing in or creating an account.
  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.

johanrknoff@gmail.com

Members
  • Content Count

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. Proceratosaurus - Was not a Ceratosaurian. It was actually a primitive Tryannosaurid, and they never bothered renaming it. Sinraptor - Means "Chinese raptor" but isn't a Dromaeosaurid (true raptor), though there are other non-dromaeosaurids with raptor in their name, but when they found an actual Dromaeosaurid in China, instead of calling it "Anything else"-Raptor, they named it Sinornithosaurus, meaning "Chinese bird lizard". They kept the "Chinese" part and ditched the "raptor" part. Saurus means lizard, which has lost absolutely all of it's meaning. I'm pretty sure there are more non-lizard Saurus's than lizards with that suffix. They've even included it in the name of at least one mammal (Basilosaurus). Not necessarily about dinosaurs per se, but the lineage of Archosaurs that led to Crocodylomorphs has been traditionally referred to as Crurotarsans and has included Phytosaurs. From my understanding, later studies determined that the crurotarsal ankle is actually an ancestral trait to all Archosaurs which was lost in the Avemetatarsalian lineage, which led to birds. The clade Crurotarsan now includes all Archosaurs and Phytosaurs which are now considered Archosauriformes. The name that is now used when referring to the croc-lineage of Archosaurs is Pseudosuchians. Please let me know if you think that I'm wrong about that.
  2. The classic model of Dinosaur evolution has two primary lineages. The Ornithischians and the Saurischians (Theropods and Sauropods). This model has been challenged by a model in which Ornithischians and Theropods fall under the clade Ornithoscelida, while Saurischia would include Sauropods and Herrerasauridae. This, would explain why feathers have been found in Ornithischian lineages as well as Theropods while no feathers have ever been discovered on any Sauropods. HOWEVER... Pterosaurs, which had diverged earlier, had feathers (I'm referring to monofilaments as feathers in this context), which might nullify that entire point, because the the potential to grow feathers is common throughout Ornithodira. Does anyone else have any thoughts on which model they prefer, or which one is more supported?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Guidelines