80 NEW REPTILES AND STEGOCEPHALIANS FROM 



can be very little doubt of its subordinal position. Little can be said of its generic 

 position. The only other Dinosaur remains that have been found in the Triassic of the 

 Southwest are the very incomplete remains of forms described by Cope as Coelophysis 

 from the Gallina Mountains in New Mexico. These forms are placed in the family 

 Cceluridse, occurring in the Upper Keuper in Europe and in the Upper Triassic in North 

 America. For the present, this fragmentary skull and the few vertebrae described below 

 may be provisionally placed in or near this genus, especially as the remains of Phytosaurs 

 and Stegocephalians which occur in the same beds indicate an Upper Triassic age. 



In 1887, Cope 1 described the remains of a small genus of Dinosaur from New Mexico, 

 which he at first placed in the genus Ccelurus, later referred to Tanystrophceus, and 

 finally placed in a new genus, Coelophysis. 2 Three species were described longicollis, 

 bauri, and willistoni. According to Huene, the type material of the last species has 

 been lost. 



During the summer of 1921 the author collected a series of small Dinosaur vertebra 

 (No. 7507, University of Michigan), a few miles north of Cedar Mountain, in Crosby 

 County, Texas, in the same beds with the Upper Triassic Phytosaurs and Stegocephalians 

 described in this paper. When found the vertebras were in position, but were fully 

 exposed and badly broken as they lay on the crumbled surface of a light cream-colored 

 clay. The anterior and posterior members of the series and many small fragments 

 of ribs were loosened from the rest of the series and had slipped down the face of a rather 

 steep slope. Because of the crumbled condition of the matrix, it was impossible to 

 collect the specimen in a block; it could only be taken up with as much of the matrix 

 as possible, which was filled with the minute fragments which had been separated from 

 the vertebrae. Reassembling the specimen has been a very long and tedious piece of 

 work and has been only fairly successful as yet, but enough has been accomplished to 

 show the character of the vertebrae. The specimen is of importance, as it is the largest 

 series of Dinosaur vertebrae yet found in a free condition in the Triassic of North America. 



The series contains 20 complete vertebra?, with the remains of two very imperfect 

 ones. Of the series, the first four are elongated and very similar to those figured by 

 Huene as characteristic of Anchisaurus coelurus and Ccelophysis. The fifth of the series 

 is shorter and shows for the first time in the series a well-developed transverse process; 

 it is probable that the first four are cervicals and the remainder dorsals. There is no 

 certain indication of the sacrals; the transverse processes of the last two are indicated 

 only by the bases, but these are well formed and not the bases of sacral ribs. In Anchi- 

 saurus there are 14 dorsals and probably 9 cervicals. According to Osborn 3 there are 

 23 presacrals in Struthiomimus, Allosaurus, and Tyrannosaurus. In Struthiomimus, 

 with 10 cervicals, the first dorsal is indicated by the presence of the first free rib according 

 to Osborn. If we accept this as a criterion, the fifth of the series here described would 

 be the first dorsal and there would be 16 dorsals, a number that seems excessive, but can 

 be questioned only by considering the last two as sacrals, a proceeding that is not war- 

 ranted by the form of the vertebrae. 



The first of the series (sixth (?) cervical) was found a little separated from the 

 series, washed down the bank, and the zygapophyses and the neural arch have not been 

 reassembled. It can be seen, however, that the zygapophyses were elongate, low, and 

 horizontal and that the neural spine was low. The centrum is elongate, the anterior 

 face concave and broader than the posterior; its borders have been injured by decay. 

 The lower face of the centrum is broader anteriorly and nearly flat at the anterior end; 



1 Cope, E. D., American Naturalist, pp. 36/-3t38, 1887. 



2 The literature of this genus is given by Hay, Bulletin United States Geological Survey, No. 179, p. 493, 1902, 



and Huene, Geol. u. Paleont. Abhdlg., N. F., Bd. vin, s. 118, 1906. In the latter paper figures are given 

 of some of the specimens and the species are in part redescribed. 



3 Osborn, H. F., Bulletin American Museum Natural History, vol. 35, art. 43, p. 735, 1917. 



