[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
In a message dated 95-12-05 18:14:40 EST, NKING.UCS@smtp.usi.edu writes:
>Every time I see "Coelurians" used this way, it confuses me. As of 1990
>(when _The Dinosauria_ was published), David Norman regarded _Coelurus_
>as a valid genus, represented by _Coelurus fragilis_, and grouped with
>"problematical coelurosaurs." So when you say "coelurian," it sounds
>like you're referring to a problematical coelurosaurian named _Coelurus_,
>or something like it.
>Has the status of _Coelurus_ changed recently? Are people really
>starting to call coelurosaurians "coelurians?"
This is something I think I started recently (a few months ago) when I posted
a little note that said essentially that the group/clade Coelurosauria should
really be called Coeluria, which was coined by Marsh (I think as a suborder)
for the theropod _Coelurus_ and as a taxonomic name has several decades of
priority. So--I'm calling the group Coeluria--it's also shorter and less
cumbersome to use than Coelurosauria--but others of a more conventional bent
will probably continue to use the latter term for a while.