Re: dino tracks near Syracuse?

["Rob Schenck" <rs7286@albany.edu>]

i dont know about that.  The tracks are from a specific period of time, so
that in itself limits the possibilities.  I guess you coudl make a case that
no ichnofossils can be tied to any skeletal specimin, tho that would tend to
make the ichnofossils relatively useless.  Perhaps then you coudl compare
one to the other though, and then they'd be usefull that way.  But anyway,
very similar tracks are foudn next to specimins of _Coelophysis_ in New
Mexico.  Of course you can disagree, but i tend to take Colbert's assesment
for the moment.  Although, it seems to me that the _Grallator_ specemin is
the senior synonym, and if anything we should refer to _Coelophysis_ as
having been the junior synonym for it.  I guess the only real way to accept
older names for fossils like ichnofossils is to assume that any association
of them with skeletal specimins is not possible.

~R.
----- Original Message -----
From: "R. Irmis" <rbi@dana.ucc.nau.edu>
To: <rs7286@albany.edu>
Cc: <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 6:02 PM
Subject: RE: dino tracks near Syracuse?


> <<Interestingly, the paper I have here says that direct fossile evidence
> takes presedence over indirect evidence, and thusly the name _Coelophysis_
> is retained and _Grallator_ dropped.>>
>
> Actually, there is really no way in the world we can assign these
footprints
> to Coelophysis.  Pretty much any theropod the size of the footprints could
> have made them.  Therefore, Grallator is most certainly retained.  It is
> what is refered to as a form genus, and refers to the form of the
footprint,
> since we cant refer to any body fossil genus.
>
> Regards,
> Randall Irmis
>