Re: [...] Archaeopteryx 10

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

David Marjanovic wrote:

> *Archaeopteryx macrura*, junior objective homonym of *Archaeopteryx 
> lithographica*. The latter name was unambiguously applied to the skeleton 
> in the paper that described the feather.

I have a slightly different understanding.  I though that _Archaeopteryx 
macrura_ was explicitly applied by Owen (in 1862) to the London specimen (a 
skeleton).  Then as now, there was doubt over which specimen (the feather or 
the skeleton) von Meyer actually applied the name _Archaeopteryx 
lithographica_ to.  In 1964, the ICZN settled the issue (without resolving 
the question) and decided to affix the name _Archaeopteryx lithographica_ to 
the London specimen.  Thus, _Archaeopteryx macrura_ officially became a 
junior objective *synonym* of _Archaeopteryx lithographica_.  To be a 
homonym would require that Owen was erecting a new genus that happened to 
have the same name as von Meyer's _Archaeopteryx_, and I don't think this 
was the case.  The ICZN suppressed the name _Archaeopteryx macrura_, along 
with _Griphosaurus_ and _Griphornis_ and their respective species.

Cheers

Tim



> > but for the Berlin specimen, it's a tad clearer. Dames (1897) named the 
> > species
> > *siemensi* as a species of *A.*, followed by Petronievics (in Petronievics 
> > and
> > Woodward, 1917, in a footnote) who coined *Archaeornis* and designated
> > *siemensi* the type species.
>
> Correct. Sorry for having confused genus and species!

_________________________________________________________________
FREE online classifieds from Windows Live Expo ? buy and sell with people 
you know 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwex0010000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://expo.live.com?s_cid=Hotmail_tagline_12/06