[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: New sauropod paper
> Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 10:40:45 -0400
> From: Brad McFeeters <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> I don't know what to make of this. The _implication_ is that
>> _J. tiguidensis_ was raised on the "_R._" _tamesnensis_ materal,
>> but it's not at all explicit.
> If "R. tamesnensis" doesn't have designated type material, its a
> nomen nudum and Sereno et al. can make those specimens the holotype
> of whatever name they choose. However, I have not read de
> Lapparent's paper to see if this is really the case.
There is an English translation freely downloadable from the wondrous
Polyglot Paleontologist web-site:
In this, "_R._" _tamesnensis_ is described in reasonable detail in
pages 29-35. There was evidently a great deal of material -- 4 teeth,
100 vertebrae, 12 ribs, 5 scapulae, 1 ilium, 2 ischia and a whole mass
of appendicular material. However, it does seem that no particular
part of this agglomeration is specified to be the holotype; indeed, I
can't find a single specimen number listed anywhere in the section.
So it looks like you're right -- the name is taxonomic junk.
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <email@example.com> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "Should array indices start at 0 or 1? My compromise of 0.5
was rejected without, I thought, proper consideration" --