Talk:Coelophysoidea

References for Coelophysoidea

This paper needs references:

Rauhut and Hungerbuhler, 2000. A review of European Triassic theropods. Gaia 15, 75-88.

Tykoski, R. S., 2005. Anatomy, Ontogeny, and Phylogeny of Coelophysoid Theropods. Ph. D dissertation.

Yates, A.M., 2006 (for 2005). A new theropod dinosaur from the Early Jurassic of South Africa and its implications for the early evolution of theropods. Palaeontologia Africana, 41: 105-122.

Also, Zupaysaurus has been shown to be closer to Dilophosaurus and Dracovenator (Yates, 2006), corroborating the monophyly of Dilophosauridae Welles, 1970, proposed as a new family to include Dilophosaurus.

Ceratosauria Issues

In virtually every article it is noted that Coelophysoidea are now considered separate from the Certatosaurs and are possibly ancestors to all theropods. Why then, pray do tell, are they still listed under the Infraorder Ceratosauria on the taxonomy section of the page? Somebody needs to change the classifications to match the articles and recent research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.220.85.117 (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

you meant "ceratosaurs" 2603:6080:21F0:AB60:3D6C:4E80:3961:5B9A (talk) 05:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

You just responded to a 16-year-old comment there. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Size chart problems

Given that D. breedorum is considered by most paleontologists to be a junior synonym of D. wetherilli, perhaps a change in that size comparison chart is in order? Dinosaur bob (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dinosaur Bob! I know D. breedorum wasn't accepted in The Dinosauria, nor earlier by Gay; only Pickering and Welles supported it. I'm not sure of any other studies on its validity, though. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Colophysoidea is not a clade

Nesbitt (2009) in his description of Tawa hallae (a non-neotheropod theropod), found coelophysoidea 2 be paraphyletic, an evolutionary grade leadin 2 averostra. Liliensternus, Cryolophosaurus and Zupaysaurus turned out 2 be theropods more advanced than coelophysids but more basal than dilophosaurus. This means either dilophosauridae is paraphyletic too or dilophosaurus is da only dilophosaurid. SO i suggest of deletin coelophysoidea article, since many other papers recently r arguing against coelophysoidea's monophyly http://picasaweb.google.com/saurian55/Chinleana?authkey=Gv1sRgCMj7xv_b5Y3iYA#5413108368352390626 Brisio (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

It's still a clade, it just doesn't include those genera, under certain phylogenies. I don't believe all published definitions depend on dilophosaurids, it's "closer to Coelophysis than to birds." Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

I cannot read what you are saying. You should:

• Capitallise I and the beginning of the sentence
• Instead of WRITING WORDS OUT IN CAPITAL LETTERS LIKE THIS, you should Bolden or Italicise your words instead.
• This is not txting. Try to write out the word to or are or the, etc. instead of just putting "2", "r" or "da", etc.
• Spellcheck in a word processing program before typing.
• Italicise genera and species names.
• Put periods at the end of your sentences.

(Intended towards Brisio) Good day, --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 21:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion no support to avoid or dispute the merge. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Support: This merge proposal is part of a broad project in WP:DINO to consolidate as many of the superfluous clades as possible (WP:REDUNDANT, WP:NOTE) and make coverage of dinosaurs much more streamlined. To this end, Coelophysidae is an ideal candidate to merge into Coelophysoidea for the following reasons:

1. Most of the content is redundant. The majority of the Coelophysoidea article is about coelophysoids.
2. Most of the scientific literature on these animals treats Coelophysoidea as a single whole, rather than two groups distinct enough to warrant separate publications for any given issue.
3. Neither article is very long by itself.
4. Neither clade is distinct enough in terms of morphology to warrant individual treatment.

A mock up of the merged article can be seen here in my sandbox. Comments are welcome. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll give the proposal a few more days before I close the discussion, but since no opposition has been voiced, if none is added within that time, I'll consider the matter closed and execute the merge. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.