Talk:Coelophysis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Dinosaurs This article, image or category is supported by WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Mexico, an attempt to better organize and improve articles related to the U.S. state of New Mexico. Join us on our project talk page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. If you rate the article please leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.


Contents

[edit] Lectotype of Coelophysis bauri

Actually, the type specimen of Eucoelophysis baldwini is NMMNH P-22298. Sullivan & Lucas (1999) described Eucoelophysis as a Coelophysis relative and suggested that the original type material of Coelophysis is possibly referrable to Eucoelophysis, but could not assign it to Eucoelophysis because of its poor nature. The reclassification of Eucoelophysis as an early plant-eating dinosaur related to Silesaurus by Nesbitt et. al. (2005) means that the lectotype of Coelophysis bauri is not referrable to Eucoelophysis and therefore belongs to Coelophysis.

Sources:

R. B. Irmis, S. J. Nesbitt, and W. G. Parker. 2005. A critical review of the Triassic North American dinosaur record. In A. W. A. Kellner, D. D. R. Henriques, & T. Rodrigues (eds.), II Congresso Latino-Americano de Paleontologia de Vertebrados, Boletim de Resumos. Museum Nacional/UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro 139.

R. M. Sullivan and S. G. Lucas. 1999. Eucoelophysis baldwini, a new theropod dinosaur from the Upper Triassic of New Mexico, and the status of the original types of Coelophysis. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 19(1):81-90.

Thanks for the clarification, something didn't seem right there.Dinoguy2 19:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

The pronunciation sketch given was wrong. The name should begin like in "cheese" (in Latin, at least; the Greek word began with "K"). I'm not fond of those intricate ways of Anglosaxons to try to pronounce things as they are written (and not in their fanciful, funny way), so I ask your help to write it properly. Good work! --Attilios 20:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

A quick Google search on "Coelophysis pronounced" pulls up 34 pronunciations, all being "SEE", not "CHEE". It may be different in other languages, but this is the English Wikipedia. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coelphysis bauri:one or two species?

I recently discovered one reference concerning Coelophysis:

Sullivan, R.M., Lucas, S.G., Heckert, A., Hunt, A.P., 1996. The type locality of Coelophysis, a Late Triassic dinosaur from north-central New Mexico (USA). Palaeontologische Zeitschrift, Band 70, Heft 1/2 . p. 245-255, 6 fig.

Abstract: Der Dinosaurierfundpunkt an der Ghost Ranch ist nicht die Typ-Lokalität einer der drei benannten Arten des spättriadischen Ceratosaurier Coelophysis (Dinosaurier; Saurischia: Theropoda). Neu entdeckte Fundpunkte spättriadischer Ceratosaurier in der Nähe der Ghost Ranch passen dagegen besser zu der geographischen und stratigraphischen Beschreibung des Erstentdeckers David Baldwin. Darüber hinaus stimmen Erhaltung und Morphologie der Ceratosaurier der neuen Fundpunkte besser mit dem Originalmaterial von Baldwin überein als das Material der Ghost Ranch. Wir nehmen daher an, daß die neuen Fundpunkte Baldwins ursprüngliche Fundpunkte sind; damit werden die neuen Funde zu Topotypen von Coelophysis. Diese Topotypen zeigen, daß sich Coelophysis deutlich von Rioarribasaurus, einem Dinosaurier von der Ghost Ranch, unterscheidet.

The dinosaur quarry at Ghost Ranch is not the type locality of any of the three named species of the Late Triassic ceratosaurian dinosaur Coelophysis (Saurischia: Theropoda). Instead, newly discovered localities near Ghost Ranch that produce Late Triassic ceratosaurs match the geographic and stratigraphic description of two of the Coelophysis type localities provided by David Baldwin, the original collector. Furthermore, the preservation and morphology of ceratosaur fossils from the new localities more nearly matches Baldwin's original material than does the Ghost Ranch quarry material. We conclude that these new localities encompass Baldwin's localities, so the newly collected ceratosaur fossils from these localities are probable topotypes of Coelophysis. These topotypes preserve unique morphology that suggests Coelophysis is a taxon distinct from Rioarribasaurus, the Ghost Ranch dinosaur.

In this paper, the authors provide good evidence from the discovery of new Coelophysis bauri material that Riorribasaurus colberti is distinct from Coelophysis bauri, based on the hip morphology, although, in fact, the two may be distinct at the species level but not at the generic level, due to Edwin Colbert's assignment of the Ghost Ranch specimens to Coelophysis on the grounds that Cope's type material is apparently similar to the Ghost Ranch material. We'll have to wait for a redescription of Coelophysis to confirm the inclusion of colberti within Coelophysis but not within C. bauri. Once this redescription is provided, then the ICZN will be petitioned to re-instate Rioarribasaurus colberti as a valid name and restore the original type designation of C. bauri, reversing the type designation in Opinion 1842.

For this reason, the source above should be added to the "References" section. 72.194.116.63 14:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Vahe Demirjian 07.53 31 May 2007

That paper is over a decade old--I'm sure this would be common usage by now if anything had come of it. Rioarribasaurus is still very much a dead taxon, so it could beadded for historical interest only. Dinoguy2 15:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Tanystrosuchus, originally described in the genus Tanystropheus, is no longer considered referable to Coelophysis and therefore assignable only to Coelophysoidea indet., according to the 2nd edition of the Dinosauria. 72.194.116.63 17:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Vahe Demrjian 3 June 2007 10.20


What about Coelophysis kayentakatae, Coelophysis rhodesiensis mentioned in the abstract of the furcula paper (see article source)? Dysmorodrepanis 19:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

They're the result of several authors starting to prefer to lump those species into C. from Megapnosaurus/Syntarsus after the whole naming debacle. If one or two more papers treat these as species of C., I'd support merging in Megapnosaurus as a junior synonym, especially since Raath himself sems to prefer that situation. Dinoguy2 00:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coelophysis re-organization

The Coelophysis page needs more references and up-to-date references concerning discovery, taxonomy, and known specimens. For example Nesbitt et. al. (2007), while demonstrating the non-dinosaurian nature of Eucoelophysis, got the chance to re-examine the specimens of Coelophysis bauri sensu Cope. They demonstrated the diagnostic portions of Cope's material to be coelophysid and thus identical to Coelophysis bauri sensu Colbert, and the limb, pedal, and dorsal elements to be non-dinosaurian. Therefore, the Coelophysis bauri syntypes are assignable to two different taxa. Also as usual, coelophysid material from the Snyder Quarry in New Mexico is indistinguishable from Coelophysis and is not referrable to Eucoelophysis. The material could represent two taxa of coelophysids as-yet-unnamed.

Nesbitt, Sterling J.; Irmis, Randall B.; and Parker, William G. (2007). "A critical re-evaluation of the Late Triassic dinosaur taxa of North America". Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 5 (2): 209-243. 68.4.61.237 00:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Vahe Demirjian 17.11 10 September 2007

Well go and put this reference in and start referencing the text, can you help on the Fossil collecting page at all? Enlil Ninlil 00:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)