[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Coelophysis species (was Re: NA therizinosaurs, Otogornis, Aublysodon and more)
In a message dated 11/9/00 1:32:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> Since Syntarsus kayentakatae is more closely related to S. rhodesiensis than
> either is to Coelophysis bauri (Tykoski 1998), S. kayentakatae would become
> a species of Coelophysis.
I haven't read Tykoski, but I'd have to say maybe, maybe not. According to
the abstract to Downs (2000), "A new comparison of _Coelophysis_ and
_Syntarsus_ indicates that putative differences in the skull roof,
interdental plates, palate, pelvic girdle, hind limb and dorsal vertebrae
have been misinterpreted", and thus the differences between _C. bauri_ and
_S. rhodesiensis_ are not as great as had been assumed.
If these characterss include some or all of those that supposedly united _S.
rhodesiensis_ and _S. kayentakatae_ to the exclusion of _C. bauri_, it is
conceivable that future comparisons could show that _rhodesiensis_ is closer
to _bauri_ than to _kayentakatae_, in which case there are three options (and
the choice is largely a matter of taste):
1. All three species could be placed in _Coelophysis_;
2. _rhodesiensis_ and _bauri_ could be placed in _Coelophysis_ and
_kayentakatae_ assigned a new generic name; or
3. extreme splitters could continue to recognize both _Coelophysis_ and
_Syntarsus_ and assign _kayentakatae_ to a new genus.
As I said, however, I have not read Tykoski's paper, so I don't really know
how plausible this is.