Talk:Eucoelophysis

Learn more about this page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eucoelophysis article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Phylogeny of Eucoelophysis and Silesaurus

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Transfer Silesaurus and Eucoelophysis to Ornithischia incertae sedis, because the two genera share a number of ornithischian characters. They are probably close to Pisanosaurus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Cite? Everything I've read on these animals lately makes their status as dinosaurs seem extremely unlikely.Dinoguy2 02:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Although Dzik (2003) described Silesaurus as a dinosauriform possibly related to dinosaurs, two alternate proposals were offered: that either Silesaurus is an early ornithischian or that it is represents a sauropodomorph-ornithischian link. Eucoelophysis may also be a basal plant-eating dinosaur.

Dzik, J. 2003. A beaked herbivorous archosaur with dinosaur affinities from the early Late Triassic of Poland. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 23(3):556-574.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of Eucoelophysis article

The holotype of Eucoelophyis baldwini is NMMNH P-22298, with six more specimens (AMNH 2729, 2736, 2738, 2739, 2749, 2751) definitely referrable. The original types of Coelophysis were thought to be possibly referrable to Eucoelophysis, but the authors who described Eucoelophysis could not assign the original Coelophysis types to the latter genus due to their poor nature (Sullivan and Lucas, 1999). Given the fact that Eucoelophysis is not a theropod, but a relative of Silesaurus, the original remains of Coelophysis are not referrable to Eucoelophysis (Nesbitt et. al., 2005).

Sullivan and 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.

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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Add topic