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

Re: Coelophysis/Rioarribasaurus



On Tue, 23 Apr 1996, Stan Friesen wrote:

> Currently I am treating them as two species in on genus, pending further
> study.

Actually, Dinogeorge gave me a list of characters a while back that make
_Rioarribasaurus_ look more like _Syntarsus_ species than like the type
of _Coelophysis_ (insofar as the characters in the type of _C. bauri_ can
be adequately determined).  I'm not just talking about fused ankles,
either.  *If* this is the case, several options exist for the
classification of these three (?) genera:

1)  _Coelophysis bauri_
    _C. colberti_
    _C. kayentakatae_
    _C. rhodesiensis_  (eat your heart out, GSP!)  :-)

2)  _Coelphysis bauri_
    _Syntarsus colberti_
    _S. kayentakatae_
    _S. rhodesiensis_

3)  _Coelophysis bauri_
    _Rioarribasaurus colberti_
    _Syntarsus kayentakatae_
    _Syntarsus rhodesiensis_

or even:

4)  _Coelophysis bauri_
    _Rioarribasaurus colberti_
    _[unnamed] kayentakatae_
    _Syntarsus rhodesiensis_.

Actually, as I mentioned before, I'm not completely satisfied with the
assignment of _S. kayentakatae_ to the genus _Syntarsus_ (what features
prompted that assignment?).  _S. rhodesiensis_ and _C./R. colberti_ seem
more like each other than either is like _S. kayentakatae_ (or maybe I'm
wrong, and this is just a waste of space).  If that is the case, then I
suggest the following:

5)  _Coelophysis bauri_
    _[new genus] kayentakatae_
    _Syntarsus colberti_
    _S. rhodesiensis_


Just a thought.  I'd like to hear anyone's comments.

Nick Pharris
Pacific Lutheran University
Tacoma, WA 98447
(206)535-8206
PharriNJ@PLU.edu