[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: 'Anhanguera' and the 'Anhangueridae'
'Anhanguera' and the 'Anhangueridae'
In response to my recent posting Herbert Bruno Campos sent the following:
'I discussed with Alex Kellner this subject a time ago and he affirmed me that
the names Anhanguera and Anhangueridae are valid. And that Anhanguera piscator
a valid species...'
Palaeontology certainly would be a lot quicker and easier if we could proceed
through such edicts and we could all devote the time saved to watching reruns
England beating Australia at rugby and, eventually, at cricket. Unfortunately,
our colleagues expect (rightly) that any claims we make, taxonomic or
should be backed up by data/evidence thus enabling our ideas to be
assessed and corroborated, or rejected. In the case of the 'Anhangueridae' the
validity of this taxon has been challenged primarily because both the content
the diagnosis of the 'Anhangueridae' is largely identical to that of the
'Ornithocheiridae' (see Unwin 2001, p. 205). Since the Ornithocheiridae was
proposed more than 100 years before the 'Anhangueridae' the former name clearly
has priority. It has been argued that these names represent rather different
concepts because Ornithocheirus is quite different form typical 'anhanguerids'
such as Anhanguera and Coloborhynchus (see e.g. Kellner and Tomida 2000;
2003). As I mentioned in my previous mail this idea is based on a serious
happily now exposed (see Unwin 2001, p. 194) although unfortunately this error
continues to appear in some works (e.g. Kellner 2003).
Supposing that one was obsessed with the idea of saving the name
then one could argue that Ornithocheirus (the type genus of Ornithocheiridae)
sufficiently different from Anhanguera/Brasileodactylus/Coloborhynchus to
the placement of these taxa in separate subfamilies - Ornithocheirinae and
Anhanguerinae, for example. But, before you all start thrashing away at your
keyboards, pointing out the problems with this, let me say 'Yes, I know', there
are several reasons why its a non-starter, not least because the name
'Anhanguera' is also of doubtful validity. The point I want to make, however,
that we should not accept that the 'Anhangueridae' or 'Anhanguera' is valid
purely on the basis of an edict from Rio (any more than that Ornithocheiridae
valid, on the basis of an edict from Berlin). Critically, the validity of
'Anhanguera' and the 'Anhangueridae' has been called into doubt and this can
be resolved by an open-minded and detailed investigation of the problem.
PS. OK, when it comes to cricket I accept that it may be a very long