[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: What happened to _tamesnensis_?
Mike Taylor wrote:
But I now noticed this on p. 304 of Upchurch et al. 2004:
Lapparent (1960a) referred various remains from the
Farak Formation of Tahoua, Niger, to a second species
[of _Rebbachisaurus_], _Rebbachisaurus tamesnensis_,
but Sereno et al. (1999) referred all of this material
Once again, dinosaur nomenclature rears its ugly head. ;-)
If _Rebbachisaurus tamesnensis_ was truly a subjective synonym of _Jobaria
tiguidensis_, then _Rebbachisaurus tamesnensis_ would become the type
species of _Jobaria_, giving the combination _J. tamesnensis_ (replacing _J.
tiguidensis_). However, Sereno et al. (1999) bypass this by noting that the
original material of _Rebbachisaurus tamesnensis_ is non-diagnostic, and
that Lapperent did not designate a type specimen for _R. tamesnensis_.
Thus, they claim _R. tamesnensis_ is a nomen dubium.
At least some of the _R. tamesnensis_ material (and perhaps all) is probably
referrable to _Jobaria_. The _R. tamesnensis_ material includes a partial
dentary, teeth, some dorsal and caudal vertebrae, an ischium, and some limb
material. It comes from the Tiouraren Formation of Niger, which also
yielded _Jobaria_. Having not read the _R. tamesnensis_ paper (which is in
French) I cannot say whether this material was found associated and/or it
shares any autapomorphies with _J. tiguidensis_.