Talk:Coelophysis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Coelophysis in Space?

In the popular culture section, there is a paragraph about the species being taken into space. The author also mentions the skull of another species being taken to Mir before being returned to Earth. I can think of no reason for such things occuring, so I believe we have some vandalism to remove. Of course, I have no evidence to the contrary, so I will leave it for someone who knows more about the topic to remove. Ravenicus451 (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It's very much true, actually. Part of a coelophysis was taken up on the Endeavor in 1998 and wound up on MIR...do a search of the internet and you'll find plenty of sites backing it up (excluding the ones that copy and paste Wiki articles, of course). Forescore68 (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

What is importantly missing from this article is why. --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• The species have been split off, but it seems much of it is just duplicate text. Wouldn't it be better to merge them for now? FunkMonk (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

Age

It seems Coelophysis bauri is younger than previously tought: a recent study puts its age not in the norian but in the rhatian. I found this info on Andrea Cau's Theropoda Brisio (talk) 06:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC) http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//theropoda.blogspot.com/2008/09/coelophysis-back-to-future.html&hl=en&langpair=it%7Cen&tbb=1&ie=utf-8 http://a-c-s.confex.com/crops/2008am/webprogram/Paper47897.html

Interesting, though it doesn't look like this has been published yet. Maybe we can cite the abstract in the body of the text for now and save sweeping changes until it's more verifiable (see also Torosaurus vs Triceratops). Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to a recent edit summary, the current age range including the Early Jurassic includes the species formerly referred to Syntarsus or Megapnosaurus, which are listed in the taxobox and therefore extend the age range of the taxon as presented here. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Feathers?

Did Coelophysis bauri have feathers? this is a case where i am not really all that sure, i know that all Maniraptorans had feathers but in my opinion Coelophysis bauri is too primitive to have feathers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.138.213.207 (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Some ornithischians (Psittacosaurus, Tianyulong) had feather like structures, which means it could be a primitive trait for Dinosauria as a whole. Sciurumimus probably shows that it is found in groups more primitive than coelurosauria. FunkMonk (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, considering modern crocodylians use the same genes (those for making feathers) for their own scutes, it's possible (if not probable) feathers are basal to Archosauria as a whole, and the crocodylomorphs simply modified their feathers into scutes. The scales on modern bird feet are modified feathers, too, IIRC, so bracketing overwhelmingly suggests Coelophysis was feathered to some extent, and considering how it's body is designed (notably more like a avian then a crocodylomorph)... Feathers seem pretty likely for Coelophysis. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

There's also this 2019 study by Hartman et al. that suggests filaments are more likely for Coelophysis because of its metabolism. This isn't mentioned at all in the article so it'd probably be worth mentioning it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weston4718 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Megapnosaurus redirect.

As of current, the subjective junior synonym Megapnosaurus redirects here. However, much of the information from the article is not in this one, and it's subjective, not objective. I think we should do a similar thing to Edmontosaurus annectens, and give the species it's own article, as Coelophysis rhodensis. Lusotitan (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It has its own article already. But the genus synonym is still a synonym of the other genus, so it should redirect there. In my opinion, all the articles should just be merged into one. FunkMonk (talk) 05:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Either way, the articles aren't merged, it just redirects. Either the Coelophysis article needs expansion, or the Megapnosaurus article needs to be reworked as Coelophysis rhodensis. Lusotitan (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, that's Coelophysis rhodesiensis. FunkMonk (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• A search on Google scholar shows that the name Megapnosaurus is actually still being used in the literature, so maybe we should restore that title? On the other hand, some articles also list the species under Coelophysis, or even still as "Syntarus". so I'm not sure if there is a consensus... I do know most dinosaur palaeontologists hate the name, so they'd probably try to sink it just to get rid of it... It does seem like most papers published since 2016 use the name Megapnosaurus unambiguously, though. FunkMonk (talk) 13:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm guessing you refer to the Powellvenator and Lucianovenator papers? I have not seen them, but unless they specifically discuss the splitting of Megapnosaurus we should follow the papers that do. IJReid ^discuss 14:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I just Google scholar searched the names and restricted them to articles published from 2016 onwards, so it was everything published since then. Didn't look thoroughly at individual papers, but it should maybe be done, if anyone gets the time... FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Powellvenator paper:

The taxonomic combination Megapnosaurus rhodesiensis (sensu Ivie et al., 2001) is used here, instead of Coelophysis rhodesiensis (contra Bristowe and Raath, 2004; contra Ezcurra and Novas, 2007), because of the results recovered in the phylogenetic analysis (see below).
...
Megapnosaurus rhodesiensis, Camposaurus arizonensis, and Segisaurus halli form an unresolved clade that is supported by an astragalus with a shallow fossa on the medial surface of its body (character 337: 0→1).
...
In agreement with a series of previous iterative analyses (Ezcurra and Brusatte, 2011; You et al., 2014; Nesbitt and Ezcurra, 2015; Martill et al., 2016), Camposaurus arizonensis is recovered within the clade that includes Coelophysis bauri and Megapnosaurus rhodesiensis. Similarly, in this analysis, Lepidus praecisio and Segisaurus halli are also added unambiguously to this clade, resulting in a polyphyletic genus Coelophysis (sensu Bristowe and Raath, 2004; i.e., Coelophysis bauri and Coelophysis rhodesiensis).

A solution to this problem would be to transfer Camposaurus arizonensis, Lepidus praecisio, and Segisaurus halli to the genus Coelophysis, resulting in three new taxonomic combinations. An alternative would be to transfer Coelophysis rhodesiensis to its own genus, a taxonomic practice that has been already done by previous authors after the erection of the genus Megapnosaurus, resulting in the combination Megapnosaurus rhodesiensis (Ivie et al., 2001), but rarely followed subsequently (e.g., Irmis, 2004).

The decision between both taxonomic options is subjective, but the latter is preferred here because Megapnosaurus rhodesiensis has been already proposed and its usage avoids new taxonomic combinations (contra Bristowe and Raath, 2004; contra Ezcurra and Novas, 2007). Nevertheless, it should be noted that the relationships within Coelophysoidea are weakly supported (e.g., low Bremer supports and resampling frequencies) and modifications in future studies are likely. As a result, the suggestion made here of using the name Megapnosaurus rhodesiensis should be regarded as preliminary until a comprehensive analysis of the phylogenetic relationships of non-averostran theropods is published.

Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

What we need is a Tschopping for coelophysids.... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, seems no one dares take responsibility for making the dreaded Megapnosaurus valid, hehe... Does the Lucianovenator paper say anything? FunkMonk (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

C. rhodesiensis throughout. Megapnosaurus is not mentioned even once. But like before C. rhodesiensis is closer to Camposaurus than C. bauri. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Having that many valid species in a theropod genus (if all those other genera that fall between bauri and rhodesiensis are sunk) is pretty much unprecedented in modern theropod palaeontology, so a split seems inevitable down the road, unless there's some heavy special pleading just to get rid of the name Megapnosaurus... But yeah, seems we should wait for now. FunkMonk (talk) 06:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coelophysis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130504013424/http://archosaur.us/theropoddatabase/Coelophysoidea.htm to http://archosaur.us/theropoddatabase/Coelophysoidea.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Species

There is no reason why species should have their article since almost no other extinct genus has individual articles for its species, so I propose to merge them into the genus article. Maybe with all the new information, the article can be improved into GA. Super Ψ Dro 20:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the issue is that the species are probably going to be split to new genera at some point. FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I imagine that the holotype will not, and yet it also has its own separate article. Super Ψ Dro 20:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, you mean the type species, I actually brought that up at its talk page I think... FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I could agree to C. bauri being redirected, but kayentakatae hasn't been referred to Coelophysis in about a decade and rhodesiensis is only questionably referred depending on the phylogeny at this point. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I mean the type species, I do not know what happened there... If nobody opposes or has something else to add in the next few hours, I will proceed to merge C. bauri and eliminate the templates of the others. Super Ψ Dro 08:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't say I disagree... FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I close the discussion. I will merge the articles in the next few minutes. Super Ψ Dro 09:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Hehe, I don't think you need to close the discussion, it is more of an admin thing... FunkMonk (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

According to WP:Merge admins closing the discussion is only necessary when it was contentious case. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 15:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I did not read that... Super Ψ Dro 16:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Err, I just pointed out why your course of action was correct in accordance with it. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 16:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussions are usually not closed in general, though. FunkMonk (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:Merge seems to be recommending it. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

That page also recommends a discussion being open for a week or more, if we are trying to follow the exact procedure... So it would be too early to close in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

proto-feathers?

The drawing has filaments like proto-feathers on the neck. Has any skin impression been found to support this? This is pretty early in the tree - is it only the extrapolation that suggests this? 50.111.8.66 (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

No proof, but the idea that the fuzz of theropods and pterosaurs is homologous would indicate it existed at the very base of dinosauria, not to mention its presence in ornithischians. Also note that two of the drawings are by Dr. Jeff Martz, made for the Petrified Forest National Park , so it's not just homemade editor speculation. FunkMonk (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Make Megapnosaurus as a different page?

There is a page named Coelophysis rhodesiensis, which is Megapnosaurus. But I found many recent papers with coelophysids such as the paper of Powellvenator and other papers of theropods like Huinculsaurus mentioning Megapnosaurus on their phylogenetic trees and other studies of theropods mentioning Megapnosaurus as a genus could have showed that there are still many authors continue using Megapnosaurus as a genus, so can we move C.rhodesiensis into Megapnosaurus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 06:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The cladogram in the recent Sarcosaurus revision[1] certainly doesn't bode well for a monophyletic Coelophysis either, it has the three species spread all over Coelophysoidae, and it even uses the name Megapnosaurus. But I think we need to wait for a paper that specifically makes these claims outside just a cladogram. FunkMonk (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Duplicate references

I noticed that some references in the Coelopyhsis article are duplicated - the same Nesbitt article 3 times and Schwartz twice. Being new to editing Wikipedia, I'm not sure how best to fix this. Suggestions would be appreciated. Striving for truth in the world (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

substituition of clade

A major change to the clade box, which also removed a reference here, needs clarification with sources. ~ cygnis insignis 13:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I fixed the cladogram because the previous one was WP:Original synthesis of two sources, Ezcurra et al., 2020 and Pacheco et al., 2019. To remove the synth, I removed the Herrerasauridae (which was appended to the Ezcurra cladogram) and added the taxa in Ezcurra's cladogram that were previously left out. 49.144.204.135 (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

We shouldn't mix findings of different sources into one cladogram, yeah. FunkMonk (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)