FW: New articles online and in print

["Williams, Tim" <TiJaWi@agron.iastate.edu>]

> Nomenclature of Archaeopteryx: Misunderstandings and solution
[snip] A  strong difference of opinion exists on whether the first 
> found isolated feather impression or the London specimen 
> of a feathered skeleton is the holotype. We conclude that 
> the isolated feather impression (main slab in Berlin and 
> counterslab in Munich) is the holotype of Archaeopteryx 
> lithographica von Meyer, 1861. 

I thought this had been resolved back in the 1960's, as a result of a
petition submitted by W.E. Swinton (ICZN Opinion #607).  The London
specimen, not the feather, bears the name _Archaeopteryx lithographica_.

Here's one discussion of the issue:

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~nieuwlnd/source5.htm

God help us if the binomen _A. lithographica_ gets attached to the isolated
feather and is declared a _nomen vanum_: _Griphosaurus_ Wagner, 1861 is the
next available genus name for the feathered skeletons.  I'd hate to see
Andreas Wagner receive any sort of legitimacy by being credited with the
naming of the urvogel.



Tim


------------------------------------------------------------ 



Timothy J. Williams, Ph.D. 

USDA-ARS Researcher 
Agronomy Hall 
Iowa State University 
Ames IA 50014 

Phone: 515 294 9233 
Fax:   515 294 9359