Re: tendaguru question???

["Tim Williams" <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Jaime A. Headden <qilongia@yahoo.com> wrote:

>   *"Barosaurus" africanus* was a renaming to convention for the American 
> taxon (*Barosaurus lentus*)
> becuase the two were considered so similar as to replace any reference to 
> the original genus (Fraas, 1908), *Tornieria africana*. [snip] As a side 
> note, as *africana* is the original spelling, this name will be retained 
> even if the taxon is refered to any genus with a masculine gender, as 
> *Barosaurus*,

I thought this taxon was originally called _Gigantosaurus africanus_ - by 
Fraas (1908).  It was renamed _Tornieria_ (by Janensch, 1961) when 
_Gigantosaurus_ was shown to be preoccupied by a genus of British sauropod 
(_Gigantosaurus_ Seeley, 1869).

Thus, _africanus_, not _africana_, is the original spelling.


>   *"Brachiosaurus" brancai* was granted the name *Giraffatitan*, but this 
> name still does not mean it is any less related to *Brachiosaurus 
> altithorax*, from the Morrison; *Brachiosaurus brancai* cannot be sunk into 
> *Giraffatitan*, rather the first is simply separated in some aesthetic 
> manner and granted an "equal" rank to make the two species _less similar_.

The reason why _brancai_ can be (and sometimes is) separated from 
_altithorax_ as a new genus has very little to do with aesthetics and much 
more to do with phylogeny:  The synapomorphies previously used to unite 
_brancai_ and _altithorax_ into a single genus appear to have a more 
widespread distribution among basal titanosauriforms ("Brachiosauridae").




Tim

_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail