File talk:Ampelomeryx ginsburgi Muséum de Toulouse Montréal-du-Gers.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Holotype?
[edit]
@Archaeodontosaurus: I doubt that the photograph overleaf really shows the holotype of Ampelomeryx ginsburgi. The holotype skull as it is shown in fig. 1 of the paper in which the name Ampelomeryx ginsburgi was coined (Duranthon et al., 1995) differs considerably from the skull figured overleaf. Furthermore, in the file description and file name it says that the specimen is from Montréal-du-Gers (France), whereas in Duranthon et al. (1995) it is said that the holotype is from Els Casots (Catalunya)... --Gretarsson (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- I will check immediately with the author. Thank you for your vigilance. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Gretarsson: Ok is a syntype I corrected. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Archaeodontosaurus: Sorry, but if there is a holotype then there can’t be syntypes because syntypes are a series of equally ranked type specimens, whereas a holotype is the only name bearing, and as such the most important type specimen (cf. ICZN, Article 73). Duranthon et al. (1995:341, 344) clearly designate the skull IPMC 10610 from Els Casots as the holotype, hence the skull overleaf can merely be a paratype. And indeed, on page 344 in Duranthon et al. (1995) it says: “Paratypes: Reste du matériel de Els Casots et matériel de Montréal-du-Gers.” So if the skull overleaf truly belongs to the material cited in Duranthon et al. (1995) then it must be a paratype. --5.28.113.84 (i.e. Gretarsson) 13:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Gretarsson: I am not competent on this subject: I have this answer of the author. I give you on your Email means to join him. Do not hesitate to contact him you will be welcome. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- Well, actually it wouldn’t be neccessary to contact the author, because all we need is to look in the paper in which the name Ampelomeryx ginsburgi was coined, and this paper clearly and explicitly says, that the type series does not comprise syntypes but one holotype and several paratypes (I’m really wondering why Duranthon in his Email reply refers this specimen to as syntype; maybe he used the word “syntype” in a wider sense, expressing that the specimen is part of the type series). Although... it would be interesting to know, which of the two paratypes from Montréal cited therein is on the photograph overleaf... --Gretarsson (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Gretarsson: I am not competent on this subject: I have this answer of the author. I give you on your Email means to join him. Do not hesitate to contact him you will be welcome. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Archaeodontosaurus: Sorry, but if there is a holotype then there can’t be syntypes because syntypes are a series of equally ranked type specimens, whereas a holotype is the only name bearing, and as such the most important type specimen (cf. ICZN, Article 73). Duranthon et al. (1995:341, 344) clearly designate the skull IPMC 10610 from Els Casots as the holotype, hence the skull overleaf can merely be a paratype. And indeed, on page 344 in Duranthon et al. (1995) it says: “Paratypes: Reste du matériel de Els Casots et matériel de Montréal-du-Gers.” So if the skull overleaf truly belongs to the material cited in Duranthon et al. (1995) then it must be a paratype. --5.28.113.84 (i.e. Gretarsson) 13:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
