Pterodactylus/Ornithocephalus lavateri

[Mike Hanson <mhanson54@comcast.net>]

Perusing some of the more arcane/ignored pterosaur literature and ran 
into a bit of a problem, to put things mildly. In 1838(a) Hermann von 
Meyer described a poorly-preserved specimen of a pterosaur as 
"Pterodactylus Lavateri" claiming that it was distinctive in having two 
phalanges in its wing. In a subsequent work von Meyer (1838b) wrote on 
the classification of Pterodactylus, and proposed the genus 
Ornithopterus for P. lavateri. Ornithopterus lavateri was by no means 
ignored by other authors, for instnace, it appears in Owen 1861 and 
Newton 1888.
Now, here's where the problem arises. According to Baur's (1889) 
commentary on Newton 1888, in 1860 von Meyer re-examined the 
"Ornithopterus lavateri" specimen and decided it was indistinguishable 
from Rhamphorhynchus. Rhamphorhynchus was named by von Meyer in 1846, 
additionally von Meyer seems to have suggested synonymy of O. lavateri 
with R. gemmingi, and R. gemmingi was named in 1846 also. Most 20th 
Century authors (e.g. Wellnhofer 1975) completely ignore Ornithopterus, 
and for good reason. It seems that here we have a senior objective 
synonym for Rhamphorhynchus and depending on how one lumps/splits 
Rhamphorhynchus, a senior objective synonym of R. gemmingi or R. 
longicaudus (R. muensteri is still safe since the species was named in 
1831, but the ganeric epithet is still a problem).
So, does this mean that Rhamphorhynchus should be thrown out in favor of 
Ornithopterus? Or should a petition be made to the ICZN? Or am I 
completely overlooking something? Or did I stumble on one of the darker 
secrets of pterosaur nomenclature and should just act like I never saw it?


Most of the literature pertaining to this problem (with the exception of 
the ever-unobtainable "Zur Fauna der Vorwelt vol. IV Reptilien aus dem 
lithographischen Schiefer des Jura" of von Meyer 1860, which, if the 
sources (Owen 1861) are leading me right, has an illustration of the 
Ornithopterus lavateri holotype, which is lacking in the original 
description), nicely enough, is online:

von Meyer 1838a: 
http://books.google.com/books?id=PlEKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA415&dq=pterodactylus+lavateri&hl=en&ei=jhT8TPS9CIurnQeio63JCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=pterodactylus%20lavateri&f=false

von Meyer 1838b: 
http://books.google.com/books?id=ANYKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA668&lpg=PA668&dq=ornithopterus+lavateri&source=bl&ots=qN1zulnWgH&sig=vnqH_KH8vW524vq9CaP0SIcWM2A&hl=en&ei=kP37TI_dKampnAejmsXICg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CC4Q6AEwBTgy#v=onepage&q=ornithopterus%20lavateri&f=false

Owen 1861: 
http://books.google.com/books?id=C80EAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA76&dq=pterodactylus+lavateri&hl=en&ei=jhT8TPS9CIurnQeio63JCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=pterodactylus%20lavateri&f=false

Baur 1889: 
http://books.google.com/books?id=S9xkAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA174&dq=ornithopterus&hl=en&ei=5R_8TN7PN5btnQeN35zICg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ornithopterus&f=false