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


In a message dated 97-01-16 14:09:47 EST, dwn194@soton.ac.uk (Darren Naish)

> If it was, that makes the feather the type for the taxon
> _Archaeopteryx lithographica_, and if it's not from the same animal
> as those represented by the skeletons (one of the possibilities
> apparently explored in Griffiths' new paper), let's be silly and say
> that the skeletal animals cannot be called _Archaeopteryx
> lithographica_. They must be something else. If - if - (lots of
> 'ifs' here) that feather is from a different taxon, I've little
> doubt that the ICZN would decide once and for all that the London
> specimen be designated the type of _Archaeopteryx lithographica_.
> So... can anyone report: has this been done? And need the community
> start a petition?  >>

I believe this problem was taken care of by Swinton in the 1960s, who
petitioned the IZCN to make the London skeleton the unambiguous type of
_Archaeopteryx lithographica_. I don't have the reference handy; it's back in
Buffalo with the rest of my dinosaur library, but look up ICZN Opinions #607
and 1070 and see what you come up with.