HOME | DD

MarioLanzas In reply to Maurissauro [2020-10-09 15:22:46 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Maurissauro In reply to MarioLanzas [2020-10-09 15:59:16 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MarioLanzas In reply to Maurissauro [2020-10-09 21:04:52 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Brutonyx In reply to MarioLanzas [2020-10-14 09:36:15 +0000 UTC]

Witton and Naish have given mildly positive comments on the paper. While they're not convinced by the phylogenetic part of the paper (especially the position of pterosaurs as non-archosaurian archosauromorphs, an idea which today is not very fashionable but nevertheless long supported by two pterosaur experts, Dave Unwin and Christopher Bennett himself) they find the anatomical considerations of the paper quite sound, although surprising. Nevertheless, they doubt this is the last time we hear about this animal, since anatomical interpretations of the specimens are made very difficult by their poor state of preservation.

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

MarioLanzas In reply to Brutonyx [2020-10-14 18:51:59 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Brutonyx In reply to MarioLanzas [2020-10-17 13:29:29 +0000 UTC]

Also Kammerer et al. (2020) in their description of Kongonaphon subsequently ignored results by Bennett (2020) and after personally examining silicone peels of the known specimens they still considered Scleromochlus an avemetatarsalian, even falling within Pterosauromorpha as the sister taxon of Pterosauria in one of their phylogenetic analyses, although they note that this particular position is dubious because of paucity of characters supporting it.
Still Baron (2020) while adding many avemetatarsalians as the outgroup in its pterosaurs dataset, did not include Scleromochlus.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

MarioLanzas In reply to mortalshinobi [2020-10-06 18:17:07 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

mortalshinobi In reply to MarioLanzas [2020-10-07 00:43:03 +0000 UTC]

👍: 1 ⏩: 0