Re: New sauropod paper

[mike@miketaylor.org.uk (Mike Taylor)]

> Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 10:40:45 -0400
> From: Brad McFeeters <archosauromorph2@hotmail.com>
>
>> I don't know what to make of this.  The _implication_ is that
>> _J. tiguidensis_ was raised on the "_R._" _tamesnensis_ materal,
>> but it's not at all explicit.
> 
> If "R. tamesnensis" doesn't have designated type material, its a
> nomen nudum and Sereno et al. can make those specimens the holotype
> of whatever name they choose.  However, I have not read de
> Lapparent's paper to see if this is really the case.

There is an English translation freely downloadable from the wondrous
Polyglot Paleontologist web-site:
        http://ravenel.si.edu/paleo/paleoglot/files/Lapparent_60.pdf
In this, "_R._" _tamesnensis_ is described in reasonable detail in
pages 29-35.  There was evidently a great deal of material -- 4 teeth,
100 vertebrae, 12 ribs, 5 scapulae, 1 ilium, 2 ischia and a whole mass
of appendicular material.  However, it does seem that no particular
part of this agglomeration is specified to be the holotype; indeed, I
can't find a single specimen number listed anywhere in the section.

So it looks like you're right -- the name is taxonomic junk.

 _/|_    ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <mike@miketaylor.org.uk>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "Should array indices start at 0 or 1?  My compromise of 0.5
         was rejected without, I thought, proper consideration" --
         Stan Kelly-Bootle.