RE: Podokesauridae, Problems of Nomenclature Returned

["R. Irmis" <rbi@dana.ucc.nau.edu>]

>You mean, Colbert, 1989 wasn't sufficient?

With all respects to the late author, no.  The study was much outdated when
published.  Do you realize that Coelophysis bauri has yet to be diagnosed
with a single apomorphy?  Right now, if one were to do a cladistic analysis
and scan the literature, you would conclude it is a metataxon (which it
obviously isn't).

><and illustrated>
>
>uhm, same as above ... to death I think. Plus Paul and Tykoski, and...
>eh, well, leave that alone.

The illustrations in Colbert 1989 are very inaccurate.  Paul has made
several excellent skull reconstructions, and Tykowski profusely illustrated
his thesis, but, accurate illustrations of the postcrania of C. bauri have
yet to be desired.

Finally, for all you who favor sinking many of the coelophysoid genera into
Coelophysis, be very wary, none of these have been studied enough to find
decent apomorphies (or lack thereof) to support this synonymization.

Regards,
Randall Irmis