Re: Double Cranial Crests

["Rob Gay" <rob_redwing@hotmail.com>]

HP Headden wrote:
>   Downs follows Paul, who suggested this as early as 1986, and
well-published in 1988, and 1994. Long before Downs.<
But the point is still a valid one.  Downs states that part of the reason
for writing his paper is to draw attention to the fact, because Paul's
earlier works have been ignored.

> and the postcrania of the Kayenta form is still diagnostically coelophysid
> (coelophysine, even).<
Indeed. But problems begin to arrise, once consideration is given to Paul
and Downs. With _Syntarsus_=_Coelophysis_, then this theoretically means
that _kayentakatae_ should be _C. kayentakatae_. But, as you mentioned, and
as I have determined as well, it is not very close to _C. bauri_ (I also
feel its different enough from _C. rhodesiensis_, but be that as it may).
So, should one sink it still into _Coelophysis_, or instead erect a new
genus? I feel that it differs significantly enough from the neotype of
_Coelophysis_ to be placed in its own genus.
Peace,
Rob

Student of Geology
Northern Arizona University
Biological Science Tech
Manti-La Sal National Forest
AIM: TarryAGoat
http://www.geocities.com/elvisimposter/dinopics.html
http://www.cafepress.com/RobsDinos
"A _Coelophysis_ with feathers?"

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com