Hello, apologies for the trouble, but I was recently forwarded a message from your Mailing List that I think has perpetuated a bit of misinformation about a Triassic reptile, and I was wondering if you could share this response.
Â
Regarding the authorship of the family Tanystropheidae, Spiekman et al. (2020) are incorrect in their conclusions. Tanystropheidae is available from Gervais (1859; they are correct that it is not mentioned in his 1858 description of Aphelosaurus). Here is the relevant text from Gervais (1859, p. 485):
âNous avons dÃjà dit que les DolichosauridÃs, qui constituent lâune des families perdues dont ou trouve les dÃbris dans les formations secondaires, nâavaient point encore Ãtà observÃs en France, et quâil en est de mÃmes des IguanodontidÃs.
Â
Plusieurs autres familles Ãteintes sont aussi dans le mÃme cas. Nous citerons les suivantes:
Â
Â
Roughly translated, this is:
âWe have already said that the dolichosaurids, which constitute one of the lost families whose remains are found in the Secondary formations, have not yet been observed in France, and that the same is true of iguanodontids.
Â
Several other extinct families are the same case. We would cite the following:
Â
Â
Two things are important to note here. 1. This is explicitly stated to be a list of extinct reptile families. 2. âLes Tanystrophesâ refers to a group of âgigantic animalsâ (plural), it is not merely conversion of the genus Tanystropheus into lay French.
Â
Under The Code, this is enough to make Tanystropheidae available from Gervais (1859). The standard family suffix of â-idaeâ is not required for families pre-1900 (n.b. two of the other families listed above, Dicynodontidae and Rhynchosauridae, originated as Owenâs âfamiliesâ Dicynodontia and Rhynchosauria but are universally considered valid). Indeed, a near-identical case in Arachnida is given as an example of an available but non-latinized family name in the latest edition of The Code (ICZN, 1999):
âArt. 11.7.2. If a family-group name was published before 1900, in accordance with the above provisions of this Article but not in latinized form, it is available with its original author and date only if it has been latinized by later authors and has been generally accepted as valid by authors interested in the group concerned and as dating from that first publication in vernacular form.
Example. The mite family name TETRANYCHIDAE is generally attributed to Donnadieu, 1875. He published the name as "TÃtranycidÃs", but in view of the general acceptance of TETRANYCHIDAE from 1875 it is to be attributed to his work and date, not to Murray (1877), who first latinized it.â
Â
As Gervaisâ âLes Tanystrophesâ was 1. Explicitly stated to be a family, 2. Based on a genus name considered valid at the time, and 3. Generally accepted as valid by subsequent authors (prior to Spiekman et al.), this satisfies all conditions for availability (diagnoses are not required for family names established pre-1931), and this name should be cited as Tanystropheidae Gervais, 1859. Tribelesodontidae Nopcsa, 1922 is a junior synonym.
Â
Sincerely,
Christian Kammerer
Â
Christian F. Kammerer, PhD.
Research Curator of Paleontology
North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences
11 West Jones Street, Raleigh, NC 27601-1029
919-707-9939
christian.kammerer@naturalsciences.org
Â
#StayStrongNC
Learn more @ nc.gov/covid19Â
And donât forget yourÂWs!ÂÂWear. Wait. Wash.
WEARÂa face covering.
WAITÂ6 feet apart from other people.Â
WASHÂyour hands often.
Â
Â
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.