Re: New articles online and in print

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

I wrote:

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

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

<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.>

  Actually, no it doesn't. It talks not about specimens. Calling it a
referrence as an animal does not mean they are neglecting a feather but
are talking about a fossil. The London specimen was not described or
available until a year after von Meyer's description. Later in 1861,
Wagner designated the _Berlin_ as *Griphornis*, whereas Owen's name for
the London specimen (1862) was *Griphosaurus*. Von Meyer's name, whatever
your inference about a quote's reference to an "animal," was to
*Archaeopteryx* as a feather. Gavin de Beer wrote a detailed article, and
the 1985 Eichstaett conference was quite through on this detail and
include not just a history of a few specimens but a detailing of their
general history and of the quarries themselves. This includes _how_ Owen
got the London specimen.

<"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.>

  Only in systematic reference of the London specimen to bear the name of
*Archaeopteryx*, not as the type. You are still inferring here. The data
speaks otherwise, and von Meyer did not have either skeleton at his
disposal when proposing nomenclature. The ICZN has not even ruled that the
London specimen bears the name *Archaeopteryx* but it has instead been
indicated that this must be so. I understand your referrence, and I do
understand what you are getting from it. But the data is clear otherwise
that von Meyer never saw the London specimen. He may have very well tried
to include it in context to his fossil, but his name and examination are
based on the feather. Such fossil data otherwise cannot be used for
nomenclatural purposes. But that's quibbling.

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

  The specimens were available all at the end of 1861. Description does
not refer to discovery. The feather was actually known before the book
Darwin published, if I recall correctly, and the first skeleton recognized
as Archie was discovered about the same time.

<...and the London specimen was found first.>

  More quibbling, but the Maxberg was found first, described as
*Pterodactylus crassipes*. The feather was described first as a bird, but
the Berlin was the first described skeleton.

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

  However, as I read the original works, it has become clear to me that,
in fact, no type has ever been designated, just nomina suppressed.
Otherwise, *A.* is the feather, is non-diagnostic a _nomen vanum_, and a
neotype should be designated. It is, in fact, mandatory under the ICZN.

  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