https://www.wsj.com/science/largest-marine-reptile-sea-dragon-whale-a527269f?mod=wknd_pos1

On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 20:38:47 -0400, Popping Mad <rainbow@colition.gov>
wrote:

>https://www.wsj.com/science/largest-marine-reptile-sea-dragon-whale-a527269f?mod=wknd_pos1

The above link requires a subscription in order to read it. Another
article about the discovery of Ichthyotitan severnensis appears here:

<https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/remains-what-could-largest-marine-32609308>

and here:

<https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0300289>

On 4/22/24 12:05 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 20:38:47 -0400, Popping Mad <rainbow@colition.gov>
> wrote:
>
>> https://www.wsj.com/science/largest-marine-reptile-sea-dragon-whale-a527269f?mod=wknd_pos1
>
>
> The above link requires a subscription in order to read it. Another
> article about the discovery of Ichthyotitan severnensis appears here:
>
> <https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/remains-what-could-largest-marine-32609308>
>
> and here:
>
> <https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0300289>
As usual, the pop articles do what they can to inflate is subject, but
this critter is definitely comparable to the biggest ichthyosaurs known.

On 4/22/24 11:47 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> On 4/22/24 12:05 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 20:38:47 -0400, Popping Mad <rainbow@colition.gov>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.wsj.com/science/largest-marine-reptile-sea-dragon-whale-a527269f?mod=wknd_pos1
>>
>>
>> The above link requires a subscription in order to read it.  Another
>> article about the discovery of Ichthyotitan severnensis appears here:
>>
>> <https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/remains-what-could-largest-marine-32609308>
>>
>> and here:
>>
>> <https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0300289>
> As usual, the pop articles do what they can to inflate is subject, but
> this critter is definitely comparable to the biggest ichthyosaurs known.

It is not every day the WSJ gives space to fossil discoveries.

On 4/25/24 06:29, Popping Mad wrote:
> On 4/22/24 11:47 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>> On 4/22/24 12:05 AM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 20:38:47 -0400, Popping Mad <rainbow@colition.gov>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://www.wsj.com/science/largest-marine-reptile-sea-dragon-whale-a527269f?mod=wknd_pos1
>>>
>>>
>>> The above link requires a subscription in order to read it.  Another
>>> article about the discovery of Ichthyotitan severnensis appears here:
>>>
>>> <https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/remains-what-could-largest-marine-32609308>
>>>
>>> and here:
>>>
>>> <https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0300289>
>> As usual, the pop articles do what they can to inflate is subject, but
>> this critter is definitely comparable to the biggest ichthyosaurs known.
>
> It is not every day the WSJ gives space to fossil discoveries.

Well you know if there were one Plesiosaur, there might be more
than one. And in but a blink of an eye in geologic time Scotland
may have been covered with a lot of glaciers.

Nonetheless if this article is paywalled, the articles showing
plesiosaurs in the Great Glen getting tossed a few fish while
in some of those locks may be less expensive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonian_Canal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Glen

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Ness

On 4/26/24 12:35 PM, trolidous wrote:
> On 4/25/24 06:29, Popping Mad wrote:
>> On 4/22/24 11:47 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>> On 4/22/24 12:05 AM, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 20:38:47 -0400, Popping Mad <rainbow@colition.gov>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.wsj.com/science/largest-marine-reptile-sea-dragon-whale-a527269f?mod=wknd_pos1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The above link requires a subscription in order to read it.  Another
>>>> article about the discovery of Ichthyotitan severnensis appears here:
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/remains-what-could-largest-marine-32609308>
>>>>
>>>> and here:
>>>>
>>>> <https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0300289>
>>> As usual, the pop articles do what they can to inflate is subject, but
>>> this critter is definitely comparable to the biggest ichthyosaurs known.
>>
>> It is not every day the WSJ gives space to fossil discoveries.
>
> Well you know if there were one Plesiosaur, there might be more
> than one.  And in but a blink of an eye in geologic time Scotland
> may have been covered with a lot of glaciers.
>
> Nonetheless if this article is paywalled, the articles showing
> plesiosaurs in the Great Glen getting tossed a few fish while
> in some of those locks may be less expensive.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonian_Canal
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Glen
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Ness
>
>
>
>
If only Nessie were a Ichthyosaur! I'll drink an Ichthyosaur Pale Ale
to it.

On 4/26/24 14:27, erik simpson wrote:
> On 4/26/24 12:35 PM, trolidous wrote:
>> On 4/25/24 06:29, Popping Mad wrote:
>>> On 4/22/24 11:47 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>> On 4/22/24 12:05 AM, jillery wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 20:38:47 -0400, Popping Mad <rainbow@colition.gov>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.wsj.com/science/largest-marine-reptile-sea-dragon-whale-a527269f?mod=wknd_pos1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The above link requires a subscription in order to read it.  Another
>>>>> article about the discovery of Ichthyotitan severnensis appears here:
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/remains-what-could-largest-marine-32609308>
>>>>>
>>>>> and here:
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0300289>
>>>> As usual, the pop articles do what they can to inflate is subject, but
>>>> this critter is definitely comparable to the biggest ichthyosaurs
>>>> known.
>>>
>>> It is not every day the WSJ gives space to fossil discoveries.
>>
>> Well you know if there were one Plesiosaur, there might be more
>> than one.  And in but a blink of an eye in geologic time Scotland
>> may have been covered with a lot of glaciers.
>>
>> Nonetheless if this article is paywalled, the articles showing
>> plesiosaurs in the Great Glen getting tossed a few fish while
>> in some of those locks may be less expensive.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonian_Canal
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Glen
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Ness
>>
>>
> If only Nessie were a Ichthyosaur!  I'll drink an Ichthyosaur Pale Ale
> to it.

So cetaceans can not easily get into our out of the Loch?

On 4/26/24 3:57 PM, trolidous wrote:
> On 4/26/24 14:27, erik simpson wrote:
>> On 4/26/24 12:35 PM, trolidous wrote:
>>> On 4/25/24 06:29, Popping Mad wrote:
>>>> On 4/22/24 11:47 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>> On 4/22/24 12:05 AM, jillery wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 20:38:47 -0400, Popping Mad
>>>>>> <rainbow@colition.gov>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.wsj.com/science/largest-marine-reptile-sea-dragon-whale-a527269f?mod=wknd_pos1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The above link requires a subscription in order to read it.  Another
>>>>>> article about the discovery of Ichthyotitan severnensis appears here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/remains-what-could-largest-marine-32609308>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0300289>
>>>>> As usual, the pop articles do what they can to inflate is subject, but
>>>>> this critter is definitely comparable to the biggest ichthyosaurs
>>>>> known.
>>>>
>>>> It is not every day the WSJ gives space to fossil discoveries.
>>>
>>> Well you know if there were one Plesiosaur, there might be more
>>> than one.  And in but a blink of an eye in geologic time Scotland
>>> may have been covered with a lot of glaciers.
>>>
>>> Nonetheless if this article is paywalled, the articles showing
>>> plesiosaurs in the Great Glen getting tossed a few fish while
>>> in some of those locks may be less expensive.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonian_Canal
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Glen
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Ness
>>>
>>>
>> If only Nessie were a Ichthyosaur!  I'll drink an Ichthyosaur Pale Ale
>> to it.
>
> So cetaceans can not easily get into our out of the Loch?
>
Present-day cetaceans couldn't manage it. Pakicetus could probably do
the job, but wouldn't be very convincing as Nessie.

On 4/26/24 14:27, erik simpson wrote:
> On 4/26/24 12:35 PM, trolidous wrote:
>> On 4/25/24 06:29, Popping Mad wrote:
>>> On 4/22/24 11:47 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>> On 4/22/24 12:05 AM, jillery wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 20:38:47 -0400, Popping Mad
<rainbow@colition.gov>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
https://www.wsj.com/science/largest-marine-reptile-sea-dragon-whale-a527269f?mod=wknd_pos1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The above link requires a subscription in order to read it. Another
>>>>> article about the discovery of Ichthyotitan severnensis appears here:
>>>>>
>>>>>
<https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/remains-what-could-largest-marine-32609308>
>>>>>
>>>>> and here:
>>>>>
>>>>>
<https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0300289>
>>>> As usual, the pop articles do what they can to inflate is subject, but
>>>> this critter is definitely comparable to the biggest ichthyosaurs
>>>> known.
>>>
>>> It is not every day the WSJ gives space to fossil discoveries.
>>
>> Well you know if there were one Plesiosaur, there might be more
>> than one. And in but a blink of an eye in geologic time Scotland
>> may have been covered with a lot of glaciers.
>>
>> Nonetheless if this article is paywalled, the articles showing
>> plesiosaurs in the Great Glen getting tossed a few fish while
>> in some of those locks may be less expensive.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonian_Canal
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Glen
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Ness
>>
> If only Nessie were a Ichthyosaur! I'll drink an Ichthyosaur Pale Ale
> to it.

So I did a little surfing on this on Wikipedia.

What are the odds.

The least common ancestor of the Ichtyosaurs and
something else was a:

species of sauropsida

species of synapsida

synapsida and sauropsida are closer to each other than
they are to ichthyosauria

ichthyosauria are actually derived from amphibians

Do you have any inside information from all of those
paywalled technical journals?

On 4/30/24 10:47 AM, trolidan wrote:
> On 4/26/24 14:27, erik simpson wrote:
> > On 4/26/24 12:35 PM, trolidous wrote:
> >> On 4/25/24 06:29, Popping Mad wrote:
> >>> On 4/22/24 11:47 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> >>>> On 4/22/24 12:05 AM, jillery wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 20:38:47 -0400, Popping Mad
> <rainbow@colition.gov>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> https://www.wsj.com/science/largest-marine-reptile-sea-dragon-whale-a527269f?mod=wknd_pos1
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The above link requires a subscription in order to read it.  Another
> >>>>> article about the discovery of Ichthyotitan severnensis appears
> here:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> <https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/remains-what-could-largest-marine-32609308>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> and here:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> <https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0300289>
> >>>> As usual, the pop articles do what they can to inflate is subject,
> but
> >>>> this critter is definitely comparable to the biggest ichthyosaurs
> >>>> known.
> >>>
> >>> It is not every day the WSJ gives space to fossil discoveries.
> >>
> >> Well you know if there were one Plesiosaur, there might be more
> >> than one.  And in but a blink of an eye in geologic time Scotland
> >> may have been covered with a lot of glaciers.
> >>
> >> Nonetheless if this article is paywalled, the articles showing
> >> plesiosaurs in the Great Glen getting tossed a few fish while
> >> in some of those locks may be less expensive.
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonian_Canal
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Glen
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Ness
> >>
> > If only Nessie were a Ichthyosaur!  I'll drink an Ichthyosaur Pale Ale
> > to it.
>
> So I did a little surfing on this on Wikipedia.
>
> What are the odds.
>
> The least common ancestor of the Ichtyosaurs and
> something else was a:
>
> species of sauropsida
>
> species of synapsida
>
> synapsida and sauropsida are closer to each other than
> they are to ichthyosauria
>
> ichthyosauria are actually derived from amphibians
>
> Do you have any inside information from all of those
> paywalled technical journals?
>
It would help a lot if you could actually cite the sources for these
various notions. Were the citations all provided in a single Wikipedia
article? If so, what?

I'm going with Sauropterygia, a subgroup of Diapsida, a subgroup of
Sauropsida.

On 4/30/24 10:47 AM, trolidan wrote:
> On 4/26/24 14:27, erik simpson wrote:
> > On 4/26/24 12:35 PM, trolidous wrote:
> >> On 4/25/24 06:29, Popping Mad wrote:
> >>> On 4/22/24 11:47 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> >>>> On 4/22/24 12:05 AM, jillery wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 20:38:47 -0400, Popping Mad
> <rainbow@colition.gov>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> https://www.wsj.com/science/largest-marine-reptile-sea-dragon-whale-a527269f?mod=wknd_pos1
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The above link requires a subscription in order to read it.  Another
> >>>>> article about the discovery of Ichthyotitan severnensis appears
> here:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> <https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/remains-what-could-largest-marine-32609308>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> and here:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> <https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0300289>
> >>>> As usual, the pop articles do what they can to inflate is subject,
> but
> >>>> this critter is definitely comparable to the biggest ichthyosaurs
> >>>> known.
> >>>
> >>> It is not every day the WSJ gives space to fossil discoveries.
> >>
> >> Well you know if there were one Plesiosaur, there might be more
> >> than one.  And in but a blink of an eye in geologic time Scotland
> >> may have been covered with a lot of glaciers.
> >>
> >> Nonetheless if this article is paywalled, the articles showing
> >> plesiosaurs in the Great Glen getting tossed a few fish while
> >> in some of those locks may be less expensive.
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonian_Canal
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Glen
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Ness
> >>
> > If only Nessie were a Ichthyosaur!  I'll drink an Ichthyosaur Pale Ale
> > to it.
>
> So I did a little surfing on this on Wikipedia.
>
> What are the odds.
>
> The least common ancestor of the Ichtyosaurs and
> something else was a:
>
> species of sauropsida
>
> species of synapsida
>
> synapsida and sauropsida are closer to each other than
> they are to ichthyosauria
>
> ichthyosauria are actually derived from amphibians
>
> Do you have any inside information from all of those
> paywalled technical journals?
>
That's pretty confused. Synapsids and sauropsids are suster groups,
derived from amniotes, which in turn are derived from amphibians.
Ichthyosaurs are within Sauropsida.

On 5/3/24 3:45 PM, trolidan wrote:
> On 4/30/24 12:19, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 4/30/24 10:47 AM, trolidan wrote:
>>> On 4/26/24 14:27, erik simpson wrote:
>>>  > On 4/26/24 12:35 PM, trolidous wrote:
>>>  >> On 4/25/24 06:29, Popping Mad wrote:
>>>  >>> On 4/22/24 11:47 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>  >>>> On 4/22/24 12:05 AM, jillery wrote:
>>>  >>>>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 20:38:47 -0400, Popping Mad
>>> <rainbow@colition.gov>
>>>  >>>>> wrote:
>>>  >>>>>
>>>  >>>>>>
>>> https://www.wsj.com/science/largest-marine-reptile-sea-dragon-whale-a527269f?mod=wknd_pos1
>>>  >>>>>
>>>  >>>>>
>>>  >>>>> The above link requires a subscription in order to read it.
>>> Another
>>>  >>>>> article about the discovery of Ichthyotitan severnensis
>>> appears here:
>>>  >>>>>
>>>  >>>>>
>>> <https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/remains-what-could-largest-marine-32609308>
>>>  >>>>>
>>>  >>>>> and here:
>>>  >>>>>
>>>  >>>>>
>>> <https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0300289>
>>>  >>>> As usual, the pop articles do what they can to inflate is
>>> subject, but
>>>  >>>> this critter is definitely comparable to the biggest ichthyosaurs
>>>  >>>> known.
>>>  >>>
>>>  >>> It is not every day the WSJ gives space to fossil discoveries.
>>>  >>
>>>  >> Well you know if there were one Plesiosaur, there might be more
>>>  >> than one.  And in but a blink of an eye in geologic time Scotland
>>>  >> may have been covered with a lot of glaciers.
>>>  >>
>>>  >> Nonetheless if this article is paywalled, the articles showing
>>>  >> plesiosaurs in the Great Glen getting tossed a few fish while
>>>  >> in some of those locks may be less expensive.
>>>  >>
>>>  >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonian_Canal
>>>  >>
>>>  >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Glen
>>>  >>
>>>  >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Ness
>>>  >>
>>>  > If only Nessie were a Ichthyosaur!  I'll drink an Ichthyosaur Pale
>>> Ale
>>>  > to it.
>>>
>>> So I did a little surfing on this on Wikipedia.
>>>
>>> What are the odds.
>>>
>>> The least common ancestor of the Ichtyosaurs and
>>> something else was a:
>>>
>>> species of sauropsida
>>>
>>> species of synapsida
>>>
>>> synapsida and sauropsida are closer to each other than
>>> they are to ichthyosauria
>>>
>>> ichthyosauria are actually derived from amphibians
>>>
>>> Do you have any inside information from all of those
>>> paywalled technical journals?
>>>
>> It would help a lot if you could actually cite the sources for these
>> various notions. Were the citations all provided in a single Wikipedia
>> article? If so, what?
>>
>> I'm going with Sauropterygia, a subgroup of Diapsida, a subgroup of
>> Sauropsida.
>
> Here is a cut and paste from the Wikipedia article I was
> surfing through earlier.

You will note that many of the claims are considered obsolete, and there
are exactly zero claims, even obsolete ones, that ichthyosaurs are not
sauropsids, i.e. that they're synapsids.

And the end is the most current idea: definitely diapsids associated
with Sauropterygia and probably archosauromorphs.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyosauria
>
> Evolutionary history
> Origin
>
> The origin of the ichthyosaurs is contentious. Until recently, clear
> transitional forms with land-dwelling vertebrate groups had not yet been
> found, the earliest known species of the ichthyosaur lineage being
> already fully aquatic. In 2014, a small basal ichthyosauriform from the
> upper Lower Triassic was described that had been discovered in China
> with characteristics suggesting an amphibious lifestyle. In 1937,
> Friedrich von Huene even hypothesised that ichthyosaurs were not
> reptiles, but instead represented a lineage separately developed from
> amphibians. Today, this notion has been discarded and a consensus exists
> that ichthyosaurs are amniote tetrapods, having descended from
> terrestrial egg-laying amniotes during the late Permian or the earliest
> Triassic. However, establishing their position within the amniote
> evolutionary tree has proven difficult, due to their heavily derived
> morphology obscuring their ancestry. Several conflicting hypotheses have
> been posited on the subject. In the second half of the 20th century,
> ichthyosaurs were usually assumed to be of the Anapsida, seen as an
> early branch of "primitive" reptiles. This would explain the early
> appearance of ichthyosaurs in the fossil record, and also their lack of
> clear affinities with other reptile groups, as anapsids were supposed to
> be little specialised. This hypothesis has become unpopular for being
> inherently vague because Anapsida is an unnatural, paraphyletic group.
> Modern exact quantitative cladistic analyses consistently indicate that
> ichthyosaurs are members of the clade Diapsida. Some studies showed a
> basal, or low, position in the diapsid tree. More analyses result in
> their being Neodiapsida, a derived diapsid subgroup.
>
> Since the 1980s, a close relationship was assumed between the
> Ichthyosauria and the Sauropterygia, another marine reptile group,
> within an overarching Euryapsida, with one such study in 1997 by John
> Merck showing them to be monophyletic archosauromorph euryapsids. This
> has been contested over the years, with the Euryapsida being seen as an
> unnatural polyphyletic assemblage of reptiles that happen to share some
> adaptations to a swimming lifestyle. However, more recent studies have
> shown further support for a monophyletic clade between
> Ichthyosauromorpha, Sauropterygia, and Thalattosauria as a massive
> marine clade of aquatic archosauromorphs originating in the Late Permian
> and diversifying in the Early Triassic.
>
> That Ichthyotitan seems like it was almost as large as a blue whale.
>
> Comparing with a calculator and interchanging units.  I am thinking
> the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria were about two thirds the length
> of a blue whale, but modern cruise ships, aircraft carriers, or
> tankers and container ships made of metal are about 10 to 20 times
> the length of a blue whale and have the surface area of about
> a hectare on the ocean.  Some of the largest Roman galleys also
> made of wood might have been three or four times the length of some
> of those 1500s ocean going vessels, but they likely often used
> oars more for motive power.
>
> As for Nessie, I have no idea how easily a cetacean could have
> used the lock and damn system underneath the shadow of a ship
> in the Caledonian Canal in say the middle 1800s.
>
>
>
>

On 4/30/24 12:19, John Harshman wrote:
> On 4/30/24 10:47 AM, trolidan wrote:
>> On 4/26/24 14:27, erik simpson wrote:
>>  > On 4/26/24 12:35 PM, trolidous wrote:
>>  >> On 4/25/24 06:29, Popping Mad wrote:
>>  >>> On 4/22/24 11:47 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>  >>>> On 4/22/24 12:05 AM, jillery wrote:
>>  >>>>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 20:38:47 -0400, Popping Mad
>> <rainbow@colition.gov>
>>  >>>>> wrote:
>>  >>>>>
>>  >>>>>>
>> https://www.wsj.com/science/largest-marine-reptile-sea-dragon-whale-a527269f?mod=wknd_pos1
>>  >>>>>
>>  >>>>>
>>  >>>>> The above link requires a subscription in order to read it.
>> Another
>>  >>>>> article about the discovery of Ichthyotitan severnensis appears
>> here:
>>  >>>>>
>>  >>>>>
>> <https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/remains-what-could-largest-marine-32609308>
>>  >>>>>
>>  >>>>> and here:
>>  >>>>>
>>  >>>>>
>> <https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0300289>
>>  >>>> As usual, the pop articles do what they can to inflate is
>> subject, but
>>  >>>> this critter is definitely comparable to the biggest ichthyosaurs
>>  >>>> known.
>>  >>>
>>  >>> It is not every day the WSJ gives space to fossil discoveries.
>>  >>
>>  >> Well you know if there were one Plesiosaur, there might be more
>>  >> than one.  And in but a blink of an eye in geologic time Scotland
>>  >> may have been covered with a lot of glaciers.
>>  >>
>>  >> Nonetheless if this article is paywalled, the articles showing
>>  >> plesiosaurs in the Great Glen getting tossed a few fish while
>>  >> in some of those locks may be less expensive.
>>  >>
>>  >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonian_Canal
>>  >>
>>  >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Glen
>>  >>
>>  >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Ness
>>  >>
>>  > If only Nessie were a Ichthyosaur!  I'll drink an Ichthyosaur Pale Ale
>>  > to it.
>>
>> So I did a little surfing on this on Wikipedia.
>>
>> What are the odds.
>>
>> The least common ancestor of the Ichtyosaurs and
>> something else was a:
>>
>> species of sauropsida
>>
>> species of synapsida
>>
>> synapsida and sauropsida are closer to each other than
>> they are to ichthyosauria
>>
>> ichthyosauria are actually derived from amphibians
>>
>> Do you have any inside information from all of those
>> paywalled technical journals?
>>
> It would help a lot if you could actually cite the sources for these
> various notions. Were the citations all provided in a single Wikipedia
> article? If so, what?
>
> I'm going with Sauropterygia, a subgroup of Diapsida, a subgroup of
> Sauropsida.

Here is a cut and paste from the Wikipedia article I was
surfing through earlier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyosauria

Evolutionary history
Origin

The origin of the ichthyosaurs is contentious. Until recently, clear
transitional forms with land-dwelling vertebrate groups had not yet been
found, the earliest known species of the ichthyosaur lineage being
already fully aquatic. In 2014, a small basal ichthyosauriform from the
upper Lower Triassic was described that had been discovered in China
with characteristics suggesting an amphibious lifestyle. In 1937,
Friedrich von Huene even hypothesised that ichthyosaurs were not
reptiles, but instead represented a lineage separately developed from
amphibians. Today, this notion has been discarded and a consensus exists
that ichthyosaurs are amniote tetrapods, having descended from
terrestrial egg-laying amniotes during the late Permian or the earliest
Triassic. However, establishing their position within the amniote
evolutionary tree has proven difficult, due to their heavily derived
morphology obscuring their ancestry. Several conflicting hypotheses have
been posited on the subject. In the second half of the 20th century,
ichthyosaurs were usually assumed to be of the Anapsida, seen as an
early branch of "primitive" reptiles. This would explain the early
appearance of ichthyosaurs in the fossil record, and also their lack of
clear affinities with other reptile groups, as anapsids were supposed to
be little specialised. This hypothesis has become unpopular for being
inherently vague because Anapsida is an unnatural, paraphyletic group.
Modern exact quantitative cladistic analyses consistently indicate that
ichthyosaurs are members of the clade Diapsida. Some studies showed a
basal, or low, position in the diapsid tree. More analyses result in
their being Neodiapsida, a derived diapsid subgroup.

Since the 1980s, a close relationship was assumed between the
Ichthyosauria and the Sauropterygia, another marine reptile group,
within an overarching Euryapsida, with one such study in 1997 by John
Merck showing them to be monophyletic archosauromorph euryapsids. This
has been contested over the years, with the Euryapsida being seen as an
unnatural polyphyletic assemblage of reptiles that happen to share some
adaptations to a swimming lifestyle. However, more recent studies have
shown further support for a monophyletic clade between
Ichthyosauromorpha, Sauropterygia, and Thalattosauria as a massive
marine clade of aquatic archosauromorphs originating in the Late Permian
and diversifying in the Early Triassic.

That Ichthyotitan seems like it was almost as large as a blue whale.

Comparing with a calculator and interchanging units. I am thinking
the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria were about two thirds the length
of a blue whale, but modern cruise ships, aircraft carriers, or
tankers and container ships made of metal are about 10 to 20 times
the length of a blue whale and have the surface area of about
a hectare on the ocean. Some of the largest Roman galleys also
made of wood might have been three or four times the length of some
of those 1500s ocean going vessels, but they likely often used
oars more for motive power.

As for Nessie, I have no idea how easily a cetacean could have
used the lock and damn system underneath the shadow of a ship
in the Caledonian Canal in say the middle 1800s.

On 5/3/24 17:16, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/3/24 3:45 PM, trolidan wrote:
>> On 4/30/24 12:19, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 4/30/24 10:47 AM, trolidan wrote:
>>>> On 4/26/24 14:27, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>  > On 4/26/24 12:35 PM, trolidous wrote:
>>>>  >> On 4/25/24 06:29, Popping Mad wrote:
>>>>  >>> On 4/22/24 11:47 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>  >>>> On 4/22/24 12:05 AM, jillery wrote:
>>>>  >>>>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 20:38:47 -0400, Popping Mad
>>>> <rainbow@colition.gov>
>>>>  >>>>> wrote:
>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>  >>>>>>
>>>> https://www.wsj.com/science/largest-marine-reptile-sea-dragon-whale-a527269f?mod=wknd_pos1
>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>  >>>>> The above link requires a subscription in order to read it.
>>>> Another
>>>>  >>>>> article about the discovery of Ichthyotitan severnensis
>>>> appears here:
>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>  >>>>>
>>>> <https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/remains-what-could-largest-marine-32609308>
>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>  >>>>> and here:
>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>  >>>>>
>>>> <https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0300289>
>>>>  >>>> As usual, the pop articles do what they can to inflate is
>>>> subject, but
>>>>  >>>> this critter is definitely comparable to the biggest ichthyosaurs
>>>>  >>>> known.
>>>>  >>>
>>>>  >>> It is not every day the WSJ gives space to fossil discoveries.
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >> Well you know if there were one Plesiosaur, there might be more
>>>>  >> than one.  And in but a blink of an eye in geologic time Scotland
>>>>  >> may have been covered with a lot of glaciers.
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >> Nonetheless if this article is paywalled, the articles showing
>>>>  >> plesiosaurs in the Great Glen getting tossed a few fish while
>>>>  >> in some of those locks may be less expensive.
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonian_Canal
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Glen
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Ness
>>>>  >>
>>>>  > If only Nessie were a Ichthyosaur!  I'll drink an Ichthyosaur
>>>> Pale Ale
>>>>  > to it.
>>>>
>>>> So I did a little surfing on this on Wikipedia.
>>>>
>>>> What are the odds.
>>>>
>>>> The least common ancestor of the Ichtyosaurs and
>>>> something else was a:
>>>>
>>>> species of sauropsida
>>>>
>>>> species of synapsida
>>>>
>>>> synapsida and sauropsida are closer to each other than
>>>> they are to ichthyosauria
>>>>
>>>> ichthyosauria are actually derived from amphibians
>>>>
>>>> Do you have any inside information from all of those
>>>> paywalled technical journals?
>>>>
>>> It would help a lot if you could actually cite the sources for these
>>> various notions. Were the citations all provided in a single
>>> Wikipedia article? If so, what?
>>>
>>> I'm going with Sauropterygia, a subgroup of Diapsida, a subgroup of
>>> Sauropsida.
>>
>> Here is a cut and paste from the Wikipedia article I was
>> surfing through earlier.
>
> You will note that many of the claims are considered obsolete, and there
> are exactly zero claims, even obsolete ones, that ichthyosaurs are not
> sauropsids, i.e. that they're synapsids.
>

Maybe it is less uncertain than I thought.

For amphibians it did mention Friedrich von Huene
in the 1930s.

> And the end is the most current idea: definitely diapsids associated
> with Sauropterygia and probably archosauromorphs.
>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyosauria
>>
>> Evolutionary history
>> Origin
>>
>> The origin of the ichthyosaurs is contentious. Until recently, clear
>> transitional forms with land-dwelling vertebrate groups had not yet
>> been found, the earliest known species of the ichthyosaur lineage
>> being already fully aquatic. In 2014, a small basal ichthyosauriform
>> from the upper Lower Triassic was described that had been discovered
>> in China with characteristics suggesting an amphibious lifestyle. In
>> 1937, Friedrich von Huene even hypothesised that ichthyosaurs were not
>> reptiles, but instead represented a lineage separately developed from
>> amphibians. Today, this notion has been discarded and a consensus
>> exists that ichthyosaurs are amniote tetrapods, having descended from
>> terrestrial egg-laying amniotes during the late Permian or the
>> earliest Triassic. However, establishing their position within the
>> amniote evolutionary tree has proven difficult, due to their heavily
>> derived morphology obscuring their ancestry. Several conflicting
>> hypotheses have been posited on the subject. In the second half of the
>> 20th century, ichthyosaurs were usually assumed to be of the Anapsida,
>> seen as an early branch of "primitive" reptiles. This would explain
>> the early appearance of ichthyosaurs in the fossil record, and also
>> their lack of clear affinities with other reptile groups, as anapsids
>> were supposed to be little specialised. This hypothesis has become
>> unpopular for being inherently vague because Anapsida is an unnatural,
>> paraphyletic group. Modern exact quantitative cladistic analyses
>> consistently indicate that ichthyosaurs are members of the clade
>> Diapsida. Some studies showed a basal, or low, position in the diapsid
>> tree. More analyses result in their being Neodiapsida, a derived
>> diapsid subgroup.
>>
>> Since the 1980s, a close relationship was assumed between the
>> Ichthyosauria and the Sauropterygia, another marine reptile group,
>> within an overarching Euryapsida, with one such study in 1997 by John
>> Merck showing them to be monophyletic archosauromorph euryapsids. This
>> has been contested over the years, with the Euryapsida being seen as
>> an unnatural polyphyletic assemblage of reptiles that happen to share
>> some adaptations to a swimming lifestyle. However, more recent studies
>> have shown further support for a monophyletic clade between
>> Ichthyosauromorpha, Sauropterygia, and Thalattosauria as a massive
>> marine clade of aquatic archosauromorphs originating in the Late
>> Permian and diversifying in the Early Triassic.
>>
>> That Ichthyotitan seems like it was almost as large as a blue whale.
>>
>> Comparing with a calculator and interchanging units.  I am thinking
>> the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria were about two thirds the length
>> of a blue whale, but modern cruise ships, aircraft carriers, or
>> tankers and container ships made of metal are about 10 to 20 times
>> the length of a blue whale and have the surface area of about
>> a hectare on the ocean.  Some of the largest Roman galleys also
>> made of wood might have been three or four times the length of some
>> of those 1500s ocean going vessels, but they likely often used
>> oars more for motive power.
>>
>> As for Nessie, I have no idea how easily a cetacean could have
>> used the lock and damn system underneath the shadow of a ship
>> in the Caledonian Canal in say the middle 1800s.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

On 5/4/24 1:26 PM, trolidous wrote:
> On 5/3/24 17:16, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/3/24 3:45 PM, trolidan wrote:
>>> On 4/30/24 12:19, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 4/30/24 10:47 AM, trolidan wrote:
>>>>> On 4/26/24 14:27, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>  > On 4/26/24 12:35 PM, trolidous wrote:
>>>>>  >> On 4/25/24 06:29, Popping Mad wrote:
>>>>>  >>> On 4/22/24 11:47 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>  >>>> On 4/22/24 12:05 AM, jillery wrote:
>>>>>  >>>>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 20:38:47 -0400, Popping Mad
>>>>> <rainbow@colition.gov>
>>>>>  >>>>> wrote:
>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>  >>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.wsj.com/science/largest-marine-reptile-sea-dragon-whale-a527269f?mod=wknd_pos1
>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>  >>>>> The above link requires a subscription in order to read it.
>>>>> Another
>>>>>  >>>>> article about the discovery of Ichthyotitan severnensis
>>>>> appears here:
>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/remains-what-could-largest-marine-32609308>
>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>  >>>>> and here:
>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>> <https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0300289>
>>>>>  >>>> As usual, the pop articles do what they can to inflate is
>>>>> subject, but
>>>>>  >>>> this critter is definitely comparable to the biggest
>>>>> ichthyosaurs
>>>>>  >>>> known.
>>>>>  >>>
>>>>>  >>> It is not every day the WSJ gives space to fossil discoveries.
>>>>>  >>
>>>>>  >> Well you know if there were one Plesiosaur, there might be more
>>>>>  >> than one.  And in but a blink of an eye in geologic time Scotland
>>>>>  >> may have been covered with a lot of glaciers.
>>>>>  >>
>>>>>  >> Nonetheless if this article is paywalled, the articles showing
>>>>>  >> plesiosaurs in the Great Glen getting tossed a few fish while
>>>>>  >> in some of those locks may be less expensive.
>>>>>  >>
>>>>>  >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonian_Canal
>>>>>  >>
>>>>>  >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Glen
>>>>>  >>
>>>>>  >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Ness
>>>>>  >>
>>>>>  > If only Nessie were a Ichthyosaur!  I'll drink an Ichthyosaur
>>>>> Pale Ale
>>>>>  > to it.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I did a little surfing on this on Wikipedia.
>>>>>
>>>>> What are the odds.
>>>>>
>>>>> The least common ancestor of the Ichtyosaurs and
>>>>> something else was a:
>>>>>
>>>>> species of sauropsida
>>>>>
>>>>> species of synapsida
>>>>>
>>>>> synapsida and sauropsida are closer to each other than
>>>>> they are to ichthyosauria
>>>>>
>>>>> ichthyosauria are actually derived from amphibians
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have any inside information from all of those
>>>>> paywalled technical journals?
>>>>>
>>>> It would help a lot if you could actually cite the sources for these
>>>> various notions. Were the citations all provided in a single
>>>> Wikipedia article? If so, what?
>>>>
>>>> I'm going with Sauropterygia, a subgroup of Diapsida, a subgroup of
>>>> Sauropsida.
>>>
>>> Here is a cut and paste from the Wikipedia article I was
>>> surfing through earlier.
>>
>> You will note that many of the claims are considered obsolete, and
>> there are exactly zero claims, even obsolete ones, that ichthyosaurs
>> are not sauropsids, i.e. that they're synapsids.
>>
>
> Maybe it is less uncertain than I thought.
>
> For amphibians it did mention Friedrich von Huene
> in the 1930s.

Exactly. As far as phylogenetic science goes, that's ancient history.

>> And the end is the most current idea: definitely diapsids associated
>> with Sauropterygia and probably archosauromorphs.
>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyosauria
>>>
>>> Evolutionary history
>>> Origin
>>>
>>> The origin of the ichthyosaurs is contentious. Until recently, clear
>>> transitional forms with land-dwelling vertebrate groups had not yet
>>> been found, the earliest known species of the ichthyosaur lineage
>>> being already fully aquatic. In 2014, a small basal ichthyosauriform
>>> from the upper Lower Triassic was described that had been discovered
>>> in China with characteristics suggesting an amphibious lifestyle. In
>>> 1937, Friedrich von Huene even hypothesised that ichthyosaurs were
>>> not reptiles, but instead represented a lineage separately developed
>>> from amphibians. Today, this notion has been discarded and a
>>> consensus exists that ichthyosaurs are amniote tetrapods, having
>>> descended from terrestrial egg-laying amniotes during the late
>>> Permian or the earliest Triassic. However, establishing their
>>> position within the amniote evolutionary tree has proven difficult,
>>> due to their heavily derived morphology obscuring their ancestry.
>>> Several conflicting hypotheses have been posited on the subject. In
>>> the second half of the 20th century, ichthyosaurs were usually
>>> assumed to be of the Anapsida, seen as an early branch of "primitive"
>>> reptiles. This would explain the early appearance of ichthyosaurs in
>>> the fossil record, and also their lack of clear affinities with other
>>> reptile groups, as anapsids were supposed to be little specialised.
>>> This hypothesis has become unpopular for being inherently vague
>>> because Anapsida is an unnatural, paraphyletic group. Modern exact
>>> quantitative cladistic analyses consistently indicate that
>>> ichthyosaurs are members of the clade Diapsida. Some studies showed a
>>> basal, or low, position in the diapsid tree. More analyses result in
>>> their being Neodiapsida, a derived diapsid subgroup.
>>>
>>> Since the 1980s, a close relationship was assumed between the
>>> Ichthyosauria and the Sauropterygia, another marine reptile group,
>>> within an overarching Euryapsida, with one such study in 1997 by John
>>> Merck showing them to be monophyletic archosauromorph euryapsids.
>>> This has been contested over the years, with the Euryapsida being
>>> seen as an unnatural polyphyletic assemblage of reptiles that happen
>>> to share some adaptations to a swimming lifestyle. However, more
>>> recent studies have shown further support for a monophyletic clade
>>> between Ichthyosauromorpha, Sauropterygia, and Thalattosauria as a
>>> massive marine clade of aquatic archosauromorphs originating in the
>>> Late Permian and diversifying in the Early Triassic.
>>>
>>> That Ichthyotitan seems like it was almost as large as a blue whale.
>>>
>>> Comparing with a calculator and interchanging units.  I am thinking
>>> the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria were about two thirds the length
>>> of a blue whale, but modern cruise ships, aircraft carriers, or
>>> tankers and container ships made of metal are about 10 to 20 times
>>> the length of a blue whale and have the surface area of about
>>> a hectare on the ocean.  Some of the largest Roman galleys also
>>> made of wood might have been three or four times the length of some
>>> of those 1500s ocean going vessels, but they likely often used
>>> oars more for motive power.
>>>
>>> As for Nessie, I have no idea how easily a cetacean could have
>>> used the lock and damn system underneath the shadow of a ship
>>> in the Caledonian Canal in say the middle 1800s.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>