[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
On Tue, 9 Jan 1996 Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:
> On 96-01-04 22:59:38 EST pharrinj@PLU.edu writes:
> >On Thu, 4 Jan 1996 Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:
> >>In a message dated 96-01-04 21:03:40 EST, TRDix@aol.com
> >>>I thought that a large number of Compys have been discovered
> >>>at the Ghost Ranch in Arizona. Am I mistaken about the find?
> >>Oops. Those are _Rioarribasaurus_ (formerly referred to
> >>_Coelophysis_, which is probably a distinct genus from the GR
> >>theropods). No Compys at Ghost Ranch!
> >What features distinguish _C. bauri_ from _R. colberti_? What
> >about _Longosaurus_ and _Podokesaurus_?
> >From the forthcoming paper by Sullivan, Lucas, Heckert & Hunt (in
> press in _Palaeontologische Zeitschrift_):
> "...unlike _Rioarribasaurus_ and _Syntarsus_, _Coelophysis_ has a
> pelvic obturator foramen not enclosed by the pubis, the femoral
> head is wedge-shaped in proximal view and greatly offset from the
> shaft, and the metatarsals are not proximally fused, but the
> proximal portions of metatarsal II overlaps III anteriorly, among
> other features. Our planned redescription of the syntypes,
> original referred specimens, and the recently discovered probable
> topotypes [of _Coelophysis_] will further detail these
> differences and establish _Coelophysis_ as a genus distinct from
> both _Syntarsus_ and _Rioarribasaurus_."
> I don't think _Longosaurus_ and _Podokesaurus_ specimens are directly
> comparable. Have to check this.
Is it possible, then, that the Ghost Ranch specimens represent a third
species of _Syntarsus_?