[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: *Rileyasuchus* and *Patricosaurus*
In a message dated 2/16/00 4:33:00 PM EST, email@example.com writes:
<< _Rileyasuchus_ Kuhn 1961, formerly _Rileya_ von Huene, 1902 - renamed
because it was preoccupied (Howard, 1888) - type species _R. bristolensis_
(von Huene, 1902). As the species name suggests, it comes from Bristol in
England, I think from the same horizon that yielded the _Thecodontosaurus
antiquus_ type material. I'm not sure excatly what the type material is,
but I've heard it could be a herrerasaurid.>>
Here is my entry from MM #2:
Genus: Rileyasuchus Kuhn, 1961 [nomen dubium]
= Rilaya von Huene, 1914 [sic]
= Rileya von Huene, 1902/Howard, 1888
= Rileyia von Huene, 1902 [sic]
= Rylea Mehl, 1915 [sic]
R. bristolensis (von Huene, 1902) Kuhn, 1961?
= Rileya bristolensis von Huene, 1902 [nomen dubium]?
NOTE: This genus is not a parasuchian as usually classified but a dinosaur
(Hunt, 1994). Referred to this order provisionally.
Adrian Hunt thinks the material is dinosaurian. I haven't had a chance to see
whether I agree, but I'd say he's probably right. Henry Riley, after whom
this fossil is named, is, with Samuel Stutchbury, one of the namers of
Thecodontosaurus. It's a British fossil, of course.
<< _Patricosaurus merocratus_ Seeley, 1887 - I know nothing about this
Here is my entry for Patricosaurus from MM #2:
Genus: Patricosaurus Seeley, 1887 [nomen dubium]
P. merocratus Seeley, 1887?
NOTE: The above genus, based on the proximal end of a femur, is not
lacertilian as originally classified but is probably an indeterminate small
theropod (R. E. Molnar, pers. comm.).
I looked up the paper and by golly, I think Ralph is quite right on this one.
Definitely a small theropod misidentified as a lizard.