[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
> Justin S Tweet wrote-
>> I've been looking at the Handbook for Paleoherpetology, Number 8
>> (Ichythopterygia, McGowan and Motani, 2003), and the authors mention on
>> page 140 that they consider *Rachitrema* to be "probably dinosaurian."
>> Does anyone here know, off-hand, what the type material for this taxon
>> is? I'd never heard of the thing until I ran across it here.-Justin
>>From Olshevsky's list...
> Rachitrema Sauvage, 1882
> = Rhacheotrema Boulenger, 1884 [sic]
> = Rhachitrema von Huene, 1902 [sic]
> R. pellati Sauvage, 1883
> = Rhachitrema pellati von Huene, 1902 [sic]
> NOTE: Originally classified as dinosaurian, this genus was synonymized
> the ichthyosaur Shastasaurus by von Huene (1902). It was later listed as a
> possible synonym of the ichthyosaur Merriamia by von Huene (1951). It is
> unlisted in Carroll, 1988.
> Mickey Mortimer
The syntype material of Rachitrema pellati Sauvage, 1883 consisted of a
number of isolated bone fragments found by two collectors independently
(Pellat and Laguille). Sauvage considered these remains to be dinosaurian,
Nopcsa (1901) even referred them to Anchisauridae. Huene 1902 recognized
the ichthyosaurian nature and referred the material to Shastasaurus.
Sauvage (1903) accepted this and he, and Merriam (1908) synonymized
Rachitrema with Ichthyosaurus (?) rheticus Sauvage, 1876 from the same
locality. Huene (1922) referred Rachitrema to ? Leptopterygius rheticus
and 1951 to ? Merriamia Boulenger. The most recent review is by Bardet &
Cuny (1993) who accepted an (?) ichthyosaurian assignment for some of the
material and referred the remaining to Reptilia indet. McGowan & Motani
(2003) do not discuss most of the references, and the assignment to
Dinosauria is not justified.
Dr. Markus Moser
Staatliches Museum fuer Naturkunde Stuttgart
Museum am Loewentor (= Rosenstein 1)