[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
        to _Jobaria_.

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_.