Ben Creisler wrote-
"*Eucoelophysis baldwini* was based on a pubis and a femur holotype (NMMNM P-22298) from the Upper Triassic Petrified Forest Formation of the Chinle Group in north-central New Mexico."
Tiny correction- The Eucoelophysis holotype also includes
two posterior cervical vertebrae, dorsal vertebral fragments, a nearly complete proximal caudal centrum, three incomplete distal caudal centra, an incomplete scapulocoracoid, an ilial fragment, a partial ischium, another partial femur, a proximal tibia,
incomplete metatarsi II and IV, metatarsal III and pedal phalanges.
"'Within Euarchontoglires, our molecular results are the first to render robust support for the monophyly and internal structure of Euarchonta (3). Euarchonta is similar to the morphology-based Archonta hypothesis, but bats are excluded." pg. 2348
[A point of grammar here: Archonta and Euarchonta are neuter plural substantives in Latin (not feminine singulars), so "is" should be "are"...]"
Really? They're discussing a clade, not the multiple individuals making up that clade. Would you say "Theropoda are similar to the apomorphy-based Avepoda, except Tawa and herrerasaurs are included"? We're not saying every one
of the multiple theropods is similar, we're saying the singular idea or concept is similar. Surely in these cases, however things work in Latin is superseded by English recognizing Euarchonta and Theropoda as single clades / hypotheses / suborders.