[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: New sauropod paper



Mike Taylor wrote-

> 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:
        http://ravenel.si.edu/paleo/paleoglot/files/Lapparent_60.pdf
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.

Doesn't this just mean all of the specimens are syntypes? A lectotype should probably be chosen, but the name's hardly invalid. Note Sereno chose a lectotype for Elaphrosaurus gautieri when he renamed it Spinostropheus.


Mickey Mortimer