Re: Newcomer (Male) with a few things to share (2nd attempt)

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

T. Michael Keesey wrote:

> Why was _S. kayentakatae_ assigned to _Syntarsus_ rather than 
> _Coelophysis_, anyway?

I believe it was the presence of the 'nasal fenestra' in _rhodesiensis_ and 
_kayentakatae_, as interpreted by Raath (1969) and Rowe (1989), 
respectively.  Rowe also refers to the analysis presented in the 
Ceratosauria chapter of the first Dinosauria volume for the _rhodesiensis_+ 
_kayentakae_ clade (Rowe and Gauthier, 1990).  As I mentioned, the existence 
of this 'nasal fenestra' has been disputed.

As Mickey said, a more recent analysis (unpublished) found no support for 
including _kayentakatae_ in either_Syntarsus_ (=_Megapnosaurus_) or 
_Coelophysis_.  Nor was it the sister taxon to _Dilophosaurus_, despite the 
presence of parasagittal crests.  Instead, it was closest to _Segisaurus_.  
So instead of putting the Kayenta species in a new genus, could we see 
_Segisaurus kayentakatae_ instead?

The crests in _kayentakatae_ are actually nowhere near as prominent as those 
of _Dilophosaurus_, so restoring the former with a _Dilophosaurus_-like head 
(as has been done) is probably an exaggeration.

Cheers

Tim