Re: New articles online and in print

["Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>]

David Marjanovic (david.marjanovic@gmx.at) wrote:

<The first quote _could_ be read under the assumption that "the animal"
_in the last sentence_, unlike that in the first, is the unseen species
that both the London specimen and the feather belong to, rather than the
concrete specimen itself, and _this_ _could_ be read (next level of
inference!!!) as implying that the feather, found first, is the type.
IMNSHO it's clear from this quote alone that von Meyer's intention was to
make the London specimen the holotype.>

  It was not so definite in the old days that a type did need to be
designated for any name infered, and in fact all that needed to be done
was to demonstrate morphology with specimens, and to figure them ... and
even this was rather loose. But it is clear that the feather was the
reference specimen for the name, before the skeleton was even discovered.
The name, not to describe a wing, but the _feather_ is in clear reference
to this and the nomen is thus as supremely apt as one could imagine. It is
an ancient feather from lithographic limestone. I see no difficulty unless
the new study suggests that there was no designation of a type in the
entire history of the a name, just an assumption of one, and in this it is
an easy measure to specifically request the nomen be attached to a
neotype. What may have been done before is that the body fossils and not
the feather should be referenced for the name, but I have not read these
descisions or their preceeding arguments.

<The second quote, in which "the animal" is obviously the London specimen,
and in which von Meyer is not 100 % sure that that the London specimen and
the feather belong to the same species in the first place, is the _PROOF_
that the London specimen and not the feather is the holotype, and that the
feather is not the type of anything. This needs no ICZN Opinions
whatsoever.>

  Whoa there, boy, the quote refers to the description of the Berlin, not
London specimen. The Berlin specimen was actually known at the time that
Wagner designated the London as the type of *Griphornis*, and Owen had
released his publication on Archie about the time that the Germans were
making the Berlin specimen known. The Neues Jarhbuech publication is about
the Berlin specimen.

<_dubium_. _vanum_ ( = empty) would mean there were no type, while the
feather would be the type.> 

  No, _vanum_ here is the correct name. A feather lacks diagnostic ability
unless it is genetic, thus the type cannot be a feather if it is a fossil.
The ICZN can designate a _nomen vanum_ in such a case as to indicate that
no true type had ever been indicated or that material for a specimen
designated is not pertinent to that nomen. In fact, if I recall correctly,
the feather is not presently catalogued or recoverable. A neotype is
mandatory in this case, but I may be mistaken. A photo of a specimen
cannot serve as a type, by similar mein.

<So would I, but this would bring the slight advantage of implying it's
not a bird, which under some minority phylogenies is a defensible point
(unless *Achillobator* is a bird). :-)>

  Bah... lol. No, Wagner's nomen has been, I beleive, specifically
supressed in favor of *Archaeopteryx* (one of the ICZN descisions) ... but
I could be wrong on that.

  Cheers,

=====
Jaime A. Headden

  Little steps are often the hardest to take.  We are too used to making leaps 
in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do.  We should all 
learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com