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

Dinosaur Genera List correction #4

In a message dated 95-10-23 20:47:34 EDT, DSmith0531@aol.com writes:

>What does this mean?
>Chasmatosaurus indicus (Huxley, 1865)*
>Specifically, what is the "indicus" for, and why is Huxley's name in

Boy, I thought I had found all of those! That's _another_ species that was
once considered a dinosaur but is no longer (it's now a proterosuchid
thecodontian); it should have been removed from the list. The parentheses
means that the species name was coined by Huxley in 1865 but under a
different generic name. Here's the entire entry for that particular genus
from _MM_ #2 (sans neat typography, of course):

Genus: Ankistrodon Huxley, 1865
  = Ankistridon von Huene, 1942 [sic]
  = Epicampodon Lydekker, 1885
  A. indicus Huxley, 1865 (type species)
    = Chasmatosaurus indicus (Huxley, 1865) von Huene, 1942
    = Epicampodon indicus (Huxley, 1865) Lydekker, 1885 (type species)
    = Thecodontosaurus indicus (Huxley, 1865) von Huene, 1907-8
    = Epicampodon (Ankistrodon) indicum Das-Gupta, 1928 [sic]
    = Epicampodon indicum Das-Gupta, 1928 [sic]

This shows that the species was originally called _Ankistrodon indicus_ by
Huxley and is the type (and only) species in that genus. Von Huene renamed it
_Chasmatosaurus indicus_ in 1942, and he had earlier transferred it to the
genus _Thecodontosaurus_ as _Thecodontosaurus indicus_ in his monograph of
1907-08. The listing also shows that Lydekker changed the name _Ankistrodon_
to _Epicampodon_ in 1885 (and if you happen to know the history, it is
because he considered _Ankistrodon_ preoccupied by the name
_Agkistrodon_--same derivation though slightly different spelling--an extant
genus of venomous snakes that includes the familiar cottonmouth). The [sic]'s
indicate various published misspellings of the names.