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

RE: Plateosaurus neotype comment from Peter Galton

I'm appalled by the flagrant disregard for the principle of priority by 
Galton.  He wants the ICZN to "use its plenary power to set aside all previous 
fixations of type species for the nominal genus Plateosaurus Meyer, 1837 and to 
designate Plateosaurus trossingensis Fraas, 1913 as the type species" over not 
only the fragmentary P. engelhardti type, but also P. longiceps, because...

"Plateosaurus longiceps Jaekel, 1913 (June) from near Halberstadt has priority 
over P. trossingensis Fraas, 1913 (November) from Trossingen, the other well 
represented species from the Trossingen Formation of Germany. However, the 
holotype of P. trossingensis (SMNS 13200) is an almost complete skeleton 
(versus skull MB R.1937 for P. longiceps) and it has been extensively 
illustrated in the literature as Plateosaurus. The hypodigm (= specimens 
available for study) for P. trossingensis is very much more extensive than that 
for P. longiceps (details in Galton, 2001a; Schoch, 2011), with numerous 
articulated skeletons, several of which have complete skulls (Galton,

1984a, 1985a, 2001a; Weishampel & Westphal, 1986; Prieto-Márquez & Norell, 
2011; Schoch, 2011). In addition, the SMNS has been excavating the reopened 
type Trossingen quarry since 2007 (Schoch, 2011) whereas the type Halberstadt 
quarry was built over in the 1940s."

So now "only" preserving a skull isn't even good enough to be a type species.  
Don't even bother naming a species from an incomplete specimen, since someone 
could find a more complete example in the future, name it differently 
(Sereno... *cough*), then petition to have your name sunk.  It would be tragic 
if the ICZN accepts this course of events, but if they do, I have my own plan.  
I'll designate the fighting dinosaur specimen IGM 100/25 'Neovelociraptor 
mortimeri', then wait a few decades and make the same argument Galton makes 
here.  After all, IGM 100/25 is a complete skeleton with good descriptions in 
the literature (Barsbold and Osmolska, 1999; Barsbold, 1983), while the 
Velociraptor holotype is just a crush
it, really.

Mickey Mortimer

> Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 10:07:34 -0800
> From: bcreisler@gmail.com
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Plateosaurus neotype comment from Peter Galton
> From: Ben Creisler
> bcreisler@gmail.com
> In the new issue of The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70 (3)
> http://iczn.org/biblio?f[0]=im_field_volume_issue%3A592&f[1]=im_field_volume_issue%3A608
> Full text is viewable at the link:
> Peter Galton (2013)
> Comment on Plateosaurus Meyer, 1837 (Dinosauria, Sauropodomorpha):
> proposed replacement of unidentifiable name-bearing type by a neotype
> (Case 3560) [response to Sues comments]
> The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70 (3): 205-206
> http://iczn.org/node/40363