Coelophysis (was RE: Labrosaurus (was RE: birds and dinosaurs))

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Nick Pharris wrote:

> > In the event that the holotype and
> > neotype of _A. fragilis_ are split up, to which specimen does the name 
> _A.
> > fragilis_ stay attached to?
>
> The neotype.  Remember _Eucoelophysis baldwini_ (the erstwhile holotype of
> _Coelophysis bauri_)?

This decision was made by the ICZN, in order to preserve the name 
_Coelophysis bauri_.  The specimen in question (AMNH 7224) was originally 
the holotype of _Rioarribasaurus colberti_ (Hunt and Lucas, 1991).  The 
scrappy holotype material for _Coelophysis bauri_, named and described by 
Cope, was deemed to be non-diagnostic, which relegated the name _C. bauri_ 
to a _nomen dubium_ (or _nomen vanum_, to be precise).

Colbert and others petitoned the ICZN to make AMNH 7224 (a fine specimen 
from the Ghost Ranch locality) the neotype for _C. bauri_.  This would 
ensure that _C. bauri_ would be a valid name, and that the abundant 
specimens from Ghost Ranch (which were presumably conspecific with AMNH 
7224) would continue to be be called _C. bauri_.  The ICZN concurred, and 
suppressed _Rioarribasaurus colberti_ in favor of _C. bauri_ (Opinion 
#1842).  Thus, _R. colberti_ became an objective junior synonym of _C. 
bauri_.

The Ghost Ranch specimens had been referred to _C. bauri_ by Colbert (1947). 
 The holotype for _Eucoelophysis baldwini_ is NMMNH P-22298 which, like the 
original type material for _C. bauri_, comes from a different locality and 
horizon to the Ghost Ranch _Coelophysis_ specimens.



Tim

_________________________________________________________________
Get fast, reliable Internet access with MSN 9 Dial-up ? now 2 months FREE!  
http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/