This HTML5 document contains 7 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Subject Item

n2:

rdfs:label

Cycnorhamphus

rdfs:comment

In 1855 a fossil in a plate of shale from the Tithonian, found near Nusplingen in Württemberg, holotype GPIT "Orig. Quenstedt 1855, Taf. 1", was named Pterodactylus suevicus by Friedrich August Quenstedt.[2] In 1870 Harry Govier Seeley assigned it to a new genus: Cycnorhamphus. In 1907 however, Felix Plieninger rejected this split, an opinion then shared by most paleontologists. In 1974 Jacques Fabre, when concluding that a new species found and named by him, Gallodactylus canjuersensis, was the same genus as P. suevicus, did not revive Cycnorhamphus, but judged that the latter name was unavailable because of mistakes in the diagnosis by Seeley. P. suevicus thus became Gallodactylus suevicus. However, in 1996 Christopher Bennett pointed out that such mistakes do not invalidate a name and t

dcterms:subject

n4: n6: n7: n8:

n5:abstract

In 1855 a fossil in a plate of shale from the Tithonian, found near Nusplingen in Württemberg, holotype GPIT "Orig. Quenstedt 1855, Taf. 1", was named Pterodactylus suevicus by Friedrich August Quenstedt.[2] In 1870 Harry Govier Seeley assigned it to a new genus: Cycnorhamphus. In 1907 however, Felix Plieninger rejected this split, an opinion then shared by most paleontologists. In 1974 Jacques Fabre, when concluding that a new species found and named by him, Gallodactylus canjuersensis, was the same genus as P. suevicus, did not revive Cycnorhamphus, but judged that the latter name was unavailable because of mistakes in the diagnosis by Seeley. P. suevicus thus became Gallodactylus suevicus. However, in 1996 Christopher Bennett pointed out that such mistakes do not invalidate a name and that therefore Cycnorhamphus has priority, making Gallodactylus canjuersensis C. canjuersensis.[2] In 2010 and 2012, Bennett published further re-studies of the fossils, concluding that the differences between the two species could be explained by age, sex or individual variation, and formally synonymized C. canjuersensis and C. suevicus.