Re: Coelurians

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 95-12-05 18:14:40 EST, NKING.UCS@smtp.usi.edu writes:

>Every time I see "Coelurians" used this way, it confuses me.  As of 1990 
>(when _The Dinosauria_ was published), David Norman regarded _Coelurus_ 
>as a valid genus, represented by _Coelurus fragilis_, and grouped with 
>"problematical coelurosaurs."  So when you say "coelurian," it sounds 
>like you're referring to a problematical coelurosaurian named _Coelurus_, 
>or something like it.
>
>Has the status of _Coelurus_ changed recently?  Are people really 
>starting to call coelurosaurians "coelurians?"
>
>

This is something I think I started recently (a few months ago) when I posted
a little note that said essentially that the group/clade Coelurosauria should
really be called Coeluria, which was coined by Marsh (I think as a suborder)
for the theropod _Coelurus_ and as a taxonomic name has several decades of
priority. So--I'm calling the group Coeluria--it's also shorter and less
cumbersome to use than Coelurosauria--but others of a more conventional bent
will probably continue to use the latter term for a while.