HOME | DD

NTamura — Qianxisaurus

Published: 2012-11-17 07:45:33 +0000 UTC; Views: 1533; Favourites: 39; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description New sauropterygian from China: [link]
Related content
Comments: 17

JWArtwork [2012-11-17 20:30:07 +0000 UTC]

Great work once again! But as I understand from your site, this one was an intermediate form between pachypleurosaurs and more advanced nothosaurs

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

NTamura In reply to JWArtwork [2012-11-17 20:38:48 +0000 UTC]

Not an intermediate... it is considered a sister taxon to both the nothosauroids and pachypleurosaurs...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JWArtwork In reply to NTamura [2012-11-17 21:34:47 +0000 UTC]

Ah, so it's a really primitive eosauropterygian, maybe related to Wumengosaurus

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

NTamura In reply to JWArtwork [2012-11-19 04:13:02 +0000 UTC]

Maybe...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JWArtwork In reply to NTamura [2012-11-19 19:49:00 +0000 UTC]

Or maybe even Claudiosaurus, or is the position of Claudisaurus really unsure

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

NTamura In reply to JWArtwork [2012-11-20 23:48:07 +0000 UTC]

I doubt it. I don't think anybody has ever considered Claudiosaurus to be an eosauropterygian?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JWArtwork In reply to NTamura [2012-11-21 23:04:55 +0000 UTC]

Well, I have this rather old book, called 'The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and other Prehistoric Animals' (hope that's the right translation, I have the Dutch version), which claims there is a reasonable chance Claudiosaurus was a sort of proto-sauropterygian, but apparently that theory has not been widely approved of... Then what would you consider the most primitive-known (Eo)Sauropterygian to be Thalattosaurs maybe

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

NTamura In reply to JWArtwork [2012-11-21 23:30:41 +0000 UTC]

Pachypleurosaurs may be?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JWArtwork In reply to NTamura [2012-11-25 00:33:34 +0000 UTC]

But this one already is more primitive than Pachypleurosaurs, right

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

NTamura In reply to JWArtwork [2012-11-25 00:50:08 +0000 UTC]

Is it? Not so sure...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JWArtwork In reply to NTamura [2012-11-25 00:58:38 +0000 UTC]

Well, you just said so...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

NTamura In reply to JWArtwork [2012-11-25 01:14:47 +0000 UTC]

Did I? I thought I said it's a sister taxon to the pachypleurosaurs... sorry!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JWArtwork In reply to NTamura [2012-11-25 01:24:25 +0000 UTC]

Well, you said "it is considered a sister taxon to both the nothosauroids and pachypleurosaurs", so that would mean it would either be closer to plesiosaurs than any nothosaur, or it would be more primitive. But a sister taxon to pachypleurosaurs is possible, then.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

NTamura In reply to JWArtwork [2012-11-25 01:26:39 +0000 UTC]

Ah.. yes.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JWArtwork In reply to NTamura [2012-11-25 02:10:47 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

PeteriDish [2012-11-17 08:22:18 +0000 UTC]

stunning!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

NTamura In reply to PeteriDish [2012-11-19 04:12:34 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0