Re: *Rileyasuchus* and *Patricosaurus*

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/16/00 4:33:00 PM EST, twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com writes:

<< _Rileyasuchus_ Kuhn 1961, formerly _Rileya_ von Huene, 1902 - renamed 
 because it was preoccupied (Howard, 1888) - type species _R. bristolensis_ 
 (von Huene, 1902).  As the species name suggests, it comes from Bristol in 
 England, I think from the same horizon that yielded the _Thecodontosaurus 
 antiquus_ type material.  I'm not sure excatly what the type material is, 
 but I've heard it could be a herrerasaurid.>>

Here is my entry from MM #2:

Genus: Rileyasuchus Kuhn, 1961 [nomen dubium]
= Rilaya von Huene, 1914 [sic]
= Rileya von Huene, 1902/Howard, 1888
= Rileyia von Huene, 1902 [sic]
= Rylea Mehl, 1915 [sic]
R. bristolensis (von Huene, 1902) Kuhn, 1961?
= Rileya bristolensis von Huene, 1902 [nomen dubium]?
NOTE: This genus is not a parasuchian as usually classified but a dinosaur 
(Hunt, 1994). Referred to this order provisionally.

Adrian Hunt thinks the material is dinosaurian. I haven't had a chance to see 
whether I agree, but I'd say he's probably right. Henry Riley, after whom 
this fossil is named, is, with Samuel Stutchbury, one of the namers of 
Thecodontosaurus. It's a British fossil, of course.
 
<< _Patricosaurus merocratus_ Seeley, 1887 - I know nothing about this 
critter. >>

Here is my entry for Patricosaurus from MM #2:

Genus: Patricosaurus Seeley, 1887 [nomen dubium]
P. merocratus Seeley, 1887?
NOTE: The above genus, based on the proximal end of a femur, is not 
lacertilian as originally classified but is probably an indeterminate small 
theropod (R. E. Molnar, pers. comm.).

I looked up the paper and by golly, I think Ralph is quite right on this one. 
Definitely a small theropod misidentified as a lizard.