[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: A nomenclatural problem

_Gigantosaurus africanus_ was referred to _Barosaurus_ by Janensch as early
as 1922 (not 1961), in his paper on the forefeet of _Gigantosaurus robustus_
and _Brachiosaurus brancai_. He did not use the actual binomen _Barosaurus
africanus_ there, however. For that, he evidently waited until his massive
work of 1929-35; Kuhn specifies the date of _Barosaurus africanus_ therein as

In the 1922 work, Janensch also explained his continued usage of
_Gigantosaurus robustus_ even though the genus was preoccupied by Seeley's
_Gigantosaurus_.  Basically, he noted that Seeley's genus had previously been
synonymized with _Ornithopsis_ by Lydekker, and that other authorities
(Zittel and Abel: both Germans) had previously established Fraas's usage of
_Gigantosaurus_ satisfactorily.

Of course, this argument is incorrect; preoccupied is preoccupied, and that's
that. Oddly, although Janensch mentioned Sternfeld's note, he did not use the
name _Tornieria_ for that species, evidently regarding _Gigantosaurus_ as the
valid senior synonym.

The blame for erroneously making _Tornieria robusta_ the type species of
_Tornieria_ seems to lie with Oskar Kuhn. His _Fossilium Catalogus_ #87
(1939, not 1937) very specifically lists _Tornieria robusta_ as the type
species ("Genotyp").

George Olshevsky