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


Pieter.Depuydt@rug.ac.be wrote:
> The genus and species Lagosuchus talampayensis was erected by Romer
> on a very incomplete archosaurian skeleton; he also named  a second
> species, L. lilloensis, represented by  more complete and better
> preserved remains : the widely known reconstruction of
> 'Lagosuchus' is based upon the  'Lagosuchus' lilloensis material.
> Bonaparte later considered L. lilloensis as a junior synonym to L.
> talampayensis.
> However, Paul Sereno restudied the specimens and came to the
> conclusion that the holotype of ''Lagosuchus' talampayensis possesses no
> autapomorphies and might even be a chimaera. The 'Lagosuchus'
> lilloensis material does have definite autapomorphies which are not
> preserved in the holotype of 'L' talampayensis.
> Sereno regarded  the genus Lagosuchus and the species talampayensis
> as nomina dubia and transferred the species lilloensis to the new
> genus Marasuchus (Mara is a Patagonian
> saltatory rodent, Sereno wanted to retain the original spirit of Romer's > 
> name).

If L. lilloensis was a junior synonym of L. talampayensis and L.
talampayensis was thrown out, why did Sereno give it a new genus name? 
Why did not the junior synonym become the valid name?  It seems to me
that this would create less confusion by retaining the original genus
name than throwing both of them out and renaming the genus since that is
what is most commonly remembered.

Joe Daniel