[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: tendaguru question???
Jaime A. Headden <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
*"Barosaurus" africanus* was a renaming to convention for the American
taxon (*Barosaurus lentus*)
becuase the two were considered so similar as to replace any reference to
the original genus (Fraas, 1908), *Tornieria africana*. [snip] As a side
note, as *africana* is the original spelling, this name will be retained
even if the taxon is refered to any genus with a masculine gender, as
I thought this taxon was originally called _Gigantosaurus africanus_ - by
Fraas (1908). It was renamed _Tornieria_ (by Janensch, 1961) when
_Gigantosaurus_ was shown to be preoccupied by a genus of British sauropod
(_Gigantosaurus_ Seeley, 1869).
Thus, _africanus_, not _africana_, is the original spelling.
*"Brachiosaurus" brancai* was granted the name *Giraffatitan*, but this
name still does not mean it is any less related to *Brachiosaurus
altithorax*, from the Morrison; *Brachiosaurus brancai* cannot be sunk into
*Giraffatitan*, rather the first is simply separated in some aesthetic
manner and granted an "equal" rank to make the two species _less similar_.
The reason why _brancai_ can be (and sometimes is) separated from
_altithorax_ as a new genus has very little to do with aesthetics and much
more to do with phylogeny: The synapomorphies previously used to unite
_brancai_ and _altithorax_ into a single genus appear to have a more
widespread distribution among basal titanosauriforms ("Brachiosauridae").
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*