[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
> In this situation, the "chaos" was caused entirely by those who
> _unnecessarily_ petitioned the ICZN to remove the name _Coelophysis bauri_
> from the specimen(s) to which Cope had attached it and to attach it to the
> type specimen designated by Hunt & Lucas for _Rioarribasaurus_.
I entirely agree.
Prior to this we had two different sets of type specimens, and it was
a largely *subjective* issue as to whether they were distinct enough
to be in one genus or two.
Currently I am treating them as two species in on genus, pending further
> Hunt & Lucas offered the name _Rioarribasaurus colberti_ for the Ghost Ranch
> theropods. The vert-paleo community is free to reject their name simply by
> NOT USING it and by continuing to use _Coelophysis bauri_ for those
> theropods. In formal systematic studies of _Coelophysis bauri_, for example,
> workers would just list _Rioarribasaurus colberti_ among the junior synonyms
> of the species.
Which is indeed what I did for a year or so after H&L's paper.
Now I list _Coelophysis colberti_ as a species of Coelophysis,
and list Rioarribasaurus as a junior synonym.
I sincerly hope the ICZN refuses to change anything.
The peace of God be with you.