You may also make a donation by using our donation forms
Cases 3000-3099 (2)
Cases 3100-3199Cases 3200-3299 (25)
Cases 3300-3399 (80)Case 3300Case 3302Case 3303Case 3304Case 3305Case 3306Case 3309Case 3311Case 3314Case 3315Case 3316Case 3317Case 3319Case 3320Case 3321Case 3322Case 3323Case 3324Case 3326Case 3327Case 3328Case 3329Case 3330Case 3331Case 3332Case 3334Case 3335Case 3337Case 3339Case 3340Case 3341Case 3342Case 3343Case 3344Case 3345Case 3346Case 3347Case 3348Case 3349Case 3350Case 3351Case 3352Case 3353Case 3354Case 3355Case 3356Case 3357Case 3359Case 3360Case 3362Case 3365Case 3366Case 3367Case 3368Case 3369Case 3371Case 3372Case 3373Case 3374Case 3375Case 3376Case 3377Case 3378Case 3380Case 3382Case 3383Case 3384Case 3385Case 3386Case 3387Case 3388Case 3389Case 3390Case 3392Case 3393Case 3394Case 3395Case 3396Case 3398Case 3399Cases 3400-3499 (100)Cases 3500-3599 (85)Cases 3600-Present (20)| Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861 (Aves): proposed conservation of usage by designation of a neotype |
| OPINION 2283 (Case 3390) Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861 (Aves): conservation of usage by designation of a neotype |
I disagree with Padian’s comment (BZN 66: 357–358) regarding the proposedneotype designation for Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861. It is appropriateto designate the London specimen (BMNH 37001, the Natural HistoryMuseum) as the neotype of this taxon. Contrary to Padian’s suggestion, theCommission has a chance here to make a nomenclatural situation clearer, resolvinga long-standing issue that surrounds one of the most famous fossils.
I wrote previously in support of Bock & Bühler’s proposal to designate a neotype
(BMNH 37001 in the Natural History Museum, London) for Archaeopteryx
lithographica. In a recent comment, Padian (BZN 66: 357–358) expressed an opposite
view. I would like to add a further comment to address these criticisms.
Padian might be correct in arguing that ‘there is no convincing evidence that the
feather and the ten skeletal specimens do not belong to the same taxon’; however,
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 67(1) March 2010 91
Padian’s (BZN 66: 357–358) suggestion that the isolated fossil feather described by
von Meyer (1861a) is a satisfactory holotype for the nominal species Archaeopteryx
lithographica deserves to be rejected for several reasons. All of these points had
already been addressed in the original application and/or in the published comments,
but as they have been passed over without discussion, a recap seems to be necessary:
(1) The suggestion that the single feather can be unequivocally identified with the
We write in support of Bock & Bühler’s proposal to set aside the holotype specimen of Archaeopteryx lithographica
I agree with the objective of the applicants and the commentators (Bock & Bühler (BZN 63(3): 182–184) and Barrett & Milner (BZN 63(4): 261–262) to conserve the name Archaeopteryx lithographica in
its accustomed sense, i.e. as typified by the ‘London specimen’ (BMNH
37001) for all the reasons stated by these authors. However,
insufficient consideration has been given to the questions 1) in which
We support Bock & Bühler’s proposal to set aside the holotype specimen of Archaeopteryx lithographica von
Meyer, 1861 and to conserve this name by designating specimen BMNH
37001 in the Natural History Museum (the ‘London specimen’) as the
neotype. We echo the comments in this regard made by Barrett &
Milner (BZN 64: 261–262) and add our opinion that,
while a name is a useful tool, where usage is extensive, common sense
is more important than hermetic bureaucracy. Vertebrate
I write to support Bock & Bühler’s proposal to set aside the single feather holotype of Archaeopteryx lithographica in the Berlin and München Museums and to conserve the usage of Archaeopteryx lithographica von
Meyer, 1861 (Aves) by designation of a neotype, BMNH 37001 in the
Natural History Museum, London. The major reasons are as follows:
Firstly, hundreds of feathered dinosaurs have been found dating from
the late Jurassic to Early Cretaceous of northeastern China in the last
I disagree with the proposal by Bock & Bühler to designate a neotype for Archaeopteryx lithographica because there is no demonstrated need to do so. First, there is no reasonable disagreement that the name was applied to the feather, the first specimen discovered, by Hermann von Meyer (1861). There is a possibility that von Meyer later intended the name also to apply to the first discovered skeletal specimen, which is now in the Natural History Museum in London, although this is ambiguous and in any case irrelevant, because the referral of the skeleton was secondary.
