[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: dino tracks near Syracuse?
<<i dont know about that. The tracks are from a specific period of time, so
that in itself limits the possibilities.>>
Not really...who is to say that they dont belong to a dinosaur not known
yet. Also, the only coelophysoid that I know of described from the East
Coast is Podokesaurus, which was destroyed in a fire (although low quality
casts exist). Colbert did synonymize this taxa with Coelophysis, but I
believe there is a large temporal age difference between the two.
<<I guess you coudl make a case that no ichnofossils can be tied to any
skeletal specimin, tho that would tend to make the ichnofossils relatively
I dont follow you here. Just because trace fossils are not assignable to
body fossil taxa doesnt make them useless. In fact, they are the only
record we have of actually behavior and activity from the animal, and
through this they can tell us alot.
<<But anyway, very similar tracks are foudn next to specimins of
_Coelophysis_ in New Mexico.>>
I know of NO such association between tracks and body fossils of dinosaurs
of any type in the whole Chinle Group. Care to enlighten me?
<<Although, it seems to me that the _Grallator_ specemin is the senior
synonym, and if anything we should refer to _Coelophysis_ as having been the
junior synonym for it.>>
Please reread Emma R.'s post. She correctly mentioned that the ICZN
explicitly states that ichnotaxa and traditional taxa are always kept
separate, even if we find a body fossil at the end of the track. The
reasons for this are two fold: A) Unless we have a body fossil at the end of
a track (Mesolimulus in Solnhofen for example), there is no way to assign
the track to any body fossil taxa, since it may be made by multiple taxa, or
belong to one not yet discovered. B) Even if we do find the body fossil at
the end of the track, there is no way to assure that this is the only taxa
that makes the track.
<<I guess the only real way to accept older names for fossils like
ichnofossils is to assume that any association of them with skeletal
specimens is not possible.>>
This IS what is assumed by ichnologists, and is the most scientifically