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

Re: [...] Archaeopteryx 10



<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.>


 Don't be too hasty on this interpretation. It is really, really ambiguous
what von Meyer was referring to,

No, it's pretty clear.

http://dml.cmnh.org/2002Aug/msg00045.html

Unfortunately the link in there to the original quotes doesn't work anymore.

(If you wonder about the grammar of the first sentence, it's a too literal translation of the "present subjunctive" as in "so be it", which is used in German to express journalistic distance and spares us from writing "he said, she said" behind every paraphrased sentence.)

and I've taken the premise in hand that von
Meyer was not in the habit of designating that many "holotypes", merely
collecting the feather and skeleton into a single animal, and granting the
animal as collected the name of choice.

Still, he attached the name to the skeleton, not to the feather. It's not a valid designation of a holotype under today's rules, but still.


Confusion in the literature, regardless of an interpretation of lack of such
ambiguity, required not one, but TWO acts of suppression by the ICZN separated
by 30 years due to a fortuitious find in Holland.

Oh yes. Suppression of *Pterodactylus crassipes* was necessary to conserve *Archaeopteryx lithographica*. But that's another story.