HOME | DD

NTamura In reply to Ryivhnn [2011-06-29 23:49:23 +0000 UTC]

Thanks!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

NTamura In reply to avancna [2011-06-21 14:29:07 +0000 UTC]

Anyway, the term prosauroopd is outdated...

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Teratophoneus In reply to NTamura [2011-07-04 16:51:48 +0000 UTC]

yes, because the "prosauropods" were actuallyjust a primitive tribe of sauropods, and beCAUSE OF THAT THE TERM PROSAUROPOD ALWAYS SHOULD BE WROTE WOTH QUOTATION MARKS:

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

avancna In reply to Teratophoneus [2011-07-13 16:15:03 +0000 UTC]

Perhaps it would be better if the term "prosauropod" should be written with a question mark, instead.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

avancna In reply to NTamura [2011-06-21 14:36:54 +0000 UTC]

I suppose so.
Plus, "Pro-prosauropod" just sounds awkward.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

NTamura In reply to avancna [2011-06-21 14:28:29 +0000 UTC]

That's an open question. Depending on which characteristics you emphasize, it came up as either very basal or quite derived sitting just outside the Plateosauria. The authors of the study seems to favor the former placement dismissing that some of the primitive features are due to the specimens being from juveniles. My gut feeling is that the second placement is probably the correct one (too many unexplained derived features) but what do I know? I am no paleontologist

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

avancna In reply to NTamura [2011-06-21 14:35:57 +0000 UTC]

Peculiar.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0