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

Re: [...] Archaeopteryx 10



I though that _Archaeopteryx macrura_ was explicitly applied by Owen
(in 1862) to the London specimen (a skeleton).

Yes.

Then as now, there was doubt over which specimen (the feather or
the skeleton) von Meyer actually applied the name _Archaeopteryx
lithographica_ to.

That was because von Meyer wrote a) in German and b) a paper about the feather -- in the last paragraph he goes like "oh, and a skeleton has just been discovered which could be called *Archaeopteryx*". It's all in the archives: von Meyer designated the London specimen, not the feather, the holotype.


(Owen didn't understand that, believed the feather was the type, believed the feather to belong to a short-tailed bird for reasons that escape me, somehow determined that the London specimen nevertheless belonged to the same genus, and coined the species name *A. macrura* for it to emphasize its oh so distinctive "big tail" in Greek.)

To be a homonym

Did I write "homonym"? ARGH! Sorry!!!