[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Podokesauridae, Problems of Nomenclature Returned
George Olshevsky wrote-
> I wouldn't be so sure that Podokesaurus is a synonym of Coelophysis. Look
> the differences that purportedly separate Coelophysis from Eucoelophysis.
> They're at least as great as the differences that separate Podokesaurus
> Coelophysis. Also Podokesaurus is considered Early Jurassic, somewhat
> than Coelophysis and Eucoelophysis (still Late Triassic). The type
> of Podokesaurus holyokensis was lost in a fire, but casts do survive. It's
> supposed to be a juvenile.
Just for the record, the latest comparison of Podokesaurus to Coelophysis
was Colbert's (1964), which wasn't very extensive. He found two
differences- dorsal neural spines anteroposteriorly shorter; ischium
differently shaped. The first is a good distinction (assuming it's real),
but the second certainly needs to be more precise. Contrary to Jaime
Headden's claims, these have never been shown to fall within the
individual/ontogenetic variation of Coelophysis, nor are they obviously
size-related. However, Coelophysis desperately needs to be redescribed and
illustrated (along with Podokesaurus) so that the question of its
relationship to Eucoelophysis, Camposaurus, Syntarsus, Podokesaurus, etc.
can finally be figured out. Personally, I don't think more than one genus
will be neccessary for these species once everything is figured out.
As for the main issue of definition vs publication priority, I'm all for
publication. Go Segnosauria, Podokesauridae and Avetheropoda!