Re: New articles online and in print

["David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>

>   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.

Yes.

> But it is clear that the feather was the
> reference specimen for the name, before the skeleton was even discovered.

No, because 1) the skeleton is "covered with feathers", and 2) "the animal"
is called *Archaeopteryx*, and 3) the second quote proves that "the animal"
is the skeleton and _not_ the feather.

> The name, not to describe a wing, but the _feather_

Or the feather_s_ on the skeleton.

>   Whoa there, boy, the quote refers to the description of the Berlin, not
> London specimen.

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~nieuwlnd/source5.htm
"As the chain of evidence is complete that the skeleton to which von Meyer
referred is the specimen which belonged to Dr. Karl Häberlein from whom it
was purchased by the Trustees of the British Museum, the correct name of the
British Museum specimen of Archaeopteryx is Archaeopteryx lithographica von
Meyer> which by Article 27 of the International Rules of Zoological
Nomenclature has priority."

I think this is definitive.

> The Berlin specimen was actually known at the time that
> Wagner designated the London as the type of *Griphornis*,

De Beer sez *Griphosaurus* Wagner, 1861, and *Griphornis* Owen in Woodward,
1862.

> The Neues Jarhbuech publication is about the Berlin specimen.

Really doesn't look like the Neues Jahrbuch publication is about the Berlin
specimen, as only one specimen is mentioned at all, and the London specimen
was found first. Unfortunately de Beer doesn't mention the Berlin specimen
outside the last paragraph.

> <_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.

I see.

>   [...] 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.

Sorry, you're right, *Griphosaurus* is suppressed.