[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
From: "King, Norm" <email@example.com>
> >Bob Sullivan is working on a new diagnosis for _Coelophysis_ that
> >distinguishes it from the Ghost Ranch theropods.
> He could just as easily formulate a diagnosis to make all of the Ghost
> Ranch theropods into _Coelophysis_.
Only if the Petrified Forest material is the same animal as the
Ghost Ranch material.
If the PF series is distinct from the GR series, then there is *no*
*way* to include the GR stuff in Coelophysis, since the type specimen
of Coelophysis is from PF.
> >Presently, we are free to use either _Coelophysis_ or
> >_Rioarribasaurus_ for the Ghost Ranch theropods.
Only because it is not yet clear if the GR and PF material are distinct
from one another.
Some of the supposed differences I have heard mentioned are far more
siggnificant than can be accomodated in one genus. If these differences
are real they will have to be split.
But until the data is published in a peer reviewed article, we can
simply say "I don't know for sure so I will treat the two groups
as synonyms for now".
The peace of God be with you.