Abstract

A comparison of measurements of the caudal vertebrae in this paper by E.C. Case with measurements of caudal vertebrae from the NMMNH Coelophysis block has shown that the animal represented in Case's 1932 paper is not Coelophysis. The overall size range of the vertebrae in the Case paper compares well with Coelophysis, but the proportions are wrong. The vertebrae at the base of the tail are too long and thin, and at the tip of the tail, they are too short and thick to represent Coelophysis.