Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 5999613" data-attributes="member: 2205">Reptilia was proposed by Gauthier in 1988 as a node based crown group containing all living animals covered under the Linnean definition, and of course their prehistoric ancestors.&nbsp; In 2004, Anderson and Modesto proposed a stem-based definition as all amniotes closer to the sand lizard and nile crocodile than to Homo sapiens, which is equivalent to Sauropsida in Laurin and Reisz's node-based definition of Sauropsida as the last common ancestor of mesosaurs, testudines and diapsids and all their descendents.&nbsp; The relationship of Parareptilia and Reptilia seems to have been an issue of considerable debate, and continues to be a question of which phylogeny are you looking at today.And a new study just released a few months ago on the cranial morphology of Mesosaurus itself threatens to throw the door open to re-evaluting its phylogenitc position all over again.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Desdichado, post: 5999613, member: 2205"] Reptilia was proposed by Gauthier in 1988 as a node based crown group containing all living animals covered under the Linnean definition, and of course their prehistoric ancestors. In 2004, Anderson and Modesto proposed a stem-based definition as all amniotes closer to the sand lizard and nile crocodile than to [I]Homo sapiens[/I], which is equivalent to Sauropsida in Laurin and Reisz's node-based definition of Sauropsida as the last common ancestor of mesosaurs, testudines and diapsids and all their descendents. The relationship of Parareptilia and Reptilia seems to have been an issue of considerable debate, and continues to be a question of which phylogeny are you looking at today. And a new study just released a few months ago on the cranial morphology of [I]Mesosaurus[/I] itself threatens to throw the door open to re-evaluting its phylogenitc position all over again. [/QUOTE]

Verification