[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Coelophysis/Rioarribasaurus

From: Dinogeorge@aol.com
 > 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.

swf@elsegundoca.attgis.com              sarima@netcom.com

The peace of God be with you.