Subject:
|
Re: Evidence of Warm Blooded Dinosaurs
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:26:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
371 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Jeff Stembel wrote:
> As far as I know, there is no debate. Icthyosaurs are not Dinosaurs, just as
> Pterosaurs aren't Dinosaurs either. :) However, all three types are
> Archosaurs. :)
I'm not very current on dino-topics, but isn't "Dinosaur" something of a bum
categorization? I thought there are/were a number of critters lumped in as dinosaurs, who
aren't any more related to each other than they are to other, non-dionsaurian critters.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Evidence of Warm Blooded Dinosaurs
|
| (...) As far as I know, there is no debate. Icthyosaurs are not Dinosaurs, just as Pterosaurs aren't Dinosaurs either. :) However, all three types are Archosaurs. :) (...) First, the sauropod (in this case, Diplodocus) dug a hole with its rear feet. (...) (25 years ago, 25-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
22 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
