Re: New articles online and in print

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 10:07 PM

> 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.

Okay. But if "animal" is used as it is in the 2nd quote, and if it is used
as the 1st quote strongly suggests, then it means the skeleton "covered with
feathers". "I have heard that an animal has been found..., for which I think
the name *A. l.* is apt".
        The feather was the reference specimen for the _publication_. The
name is _not_ what the publication is about, it is just "yeah, and I've just
heard that a skeleton covered with feathers has been found, and I think the
feather that I describe here probably comes from that animal, which, BTW,
should be called *Archaeopteryx lithographica*, that name would fit,
wouldn't it". That's it.
        Unlike us today, von Meyer didn't realize the... metaphysical
dimension of what he had done, that he had created a new official name into
being that needed a thorough, formalized description, with gen. et sp. nov.,
with a classification, with a well-illustrated type, with an etymology etc.
etc. to enable the scientific community blah blah. He just did it in
passing. A modern example would be "oh, and there was a scrap of bone in
there, let's call it Capitalsaurus" (but probably that's a gross
misrepresentation of the announcement of the latter).

> The London specimen was not described or
> available until a year after von Meyer's description.

Described, yes. Available... von Meyer writes that he had heard that such a
skeleton had been found, and (probably invalidly, coming to think of it)
designated it the holotype in absence. (So it's possible, I agree, that *A.*
doesn't have a valid holotype, but the feather is not even an invalid one.
:-) )

> Later in 1861,
> Wagner designated the _Berlin_

Are you sure? De Beer apparently didn't think so.

> as *Griphornis*,

*Gripho_saurus_*. (He thought it was _not a bird_ but of all things a
"pterodactyl".)

> whereas Owen's name for
> the London specimen (1862) was *Griphosaurus*.

At first he intended to name it *Griph_ornis_* "to show his conviction that
it was a bird", Woodward wrote. Owen never published *Griphornis* because in
the last moment he went back to *Archaeopteryx*, but incorrectly assuming
that the type of that genus was the feather, he didn't assign it to the type
species but to a new one, *A. macrura*. Or so de Beer wrote.

> Von Meyer's name, whatever
> your inference about a quote's reference to an "animal," was to
> *Archaeopteryx* as a feather.

Then where is my inference wrong? And my understanding of the 2nd quote?

> 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.

Interesting. I won't be able to get the conference proceedings.

> <"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.

As the intended type. Not as the _valid_ type, probably. :-)

> [...] von Meyer did not have either skeleton at his
> disposal when proposing nomenclature.

Yes. Nevertheless, he named a skeleton, and not the feather he had, *A.*,
ignoring the fact that he hadn't even seen the skeleton.

> I understand your referrence, and I do
> understand what you are getting from it.

What am I getting from it? :-) I mean, if the feather were the type, I'd
obviously (morally) support a petition to make the London specimen the
neotype. And apparently there is no _valid_ type, so such a petition is
necessary anyway.

> But the data is clear otherwise
> that von Meyer never saw the London specimen.

Looks like it.

> He may have very well tried
> to include it in context to his fossil, but his name and examination are
> based on the feather.

Examination, don't know if there is any in his paper. Name, no.

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

(This is just in reference to your jumbling of the names above.)

> 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.

Sure???

> <...and the London specimen was found first.>
>
>   More quibbling, but the Maxberg was found first, described as
> *Pterodactylus crassipes*.

Yes. All I tried to say is that the London specimen was found before the
Berlin one.

>   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 [...] a _nomen vanum_, and a
> neotype should be designated. It is, in fact, mandatory under the ICZN.

Looks like it.