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

Re: tendaguru question???

Jaime A. Headden <qilongia@yahoo.com> 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 *Barosaurus*,

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* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail