Jump to content

Petalodus Holotype Photographs


Recommended Posts

I've found five Petalodus teeth and have been spending a lot of time reading research papers on them. I got the idea of trying to get released photographs for the 16 holotypes of named species within the Paleobiological database. I got the 16 named species from a list here:

 

http://fossilworks.org/?a=referenceInfo&reference_no=42606

 

Petalodus ohioensis was easy enough to find, Yale publishes some of their collection online. Unfortunately the one in their collection is only a cast. The original may be lost.

 

This paper has a few, including ohioensis.

Taxonomic validity of Petalodus ohioensis (Chondrichthyes, Petalodontidae) based on a cast of the lost holotype – K. Carpenter, W. Itano

 

Here are the 16 I am trying to get. I've asked permission for allegheniensis and I have ohioensis. I need to see if there are holotypes for the other 14 and which collections they are stored. I would love to create a public open web page that shows all 16 (if they exist).

 

Petalodus acuminatus 1836 (Agassiz)
Petalodus allegheniensis 1856 (Leidy)
Petalodus arcuatus 1870 (St. John)
Petalodus curtus 1870 (Newberry and Worthen)
Petalodus davisii 1889 (Woodward)
Petalodus flabellula 1889 (Woodward)
Petalodus grandis 1883 (Davis)
Petalodus hastingsiae 1840 (Owen)
Petalodus hybridus 1875 (St. John and Worthen)
Petalodus jewetti 1957 (Miller)
Petalodus knappi 1879 (Newberry)
Petalodus linearis 1838 (Agassiz)
Petalodus linguifer 1866 (Newberry and Worthen)
Petalodus ohioensis 1853 (Safford)
Petalodus proximus 1875 (St. John and Worthen)
Petalodus sagittatus 1843 (Agassiz)

 

I am going to continue down the road, but figured I would raise the issue here. One road block is that some of the original teeth may be described in non-english research papers.

 

Thank you!

  • I found this Informative 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

So I've been going along pretty good. Of the 16, I now have 4 modern photos (and two additional photos of two other species not listed above).

 

I'm currently stuck on Petalodus knappi. The describing publication come from Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Annual Reports of the Geological Survey of Indiana. E.T. Cox, 1879. Page 345

 

There is no illustration in this publication. The description says:

A number of specimens of this species occur in the collection; two entire ones from the Keokuk beds, Bono, Lawrence county, Ind.,. collected by Dr. Knapp; others from Clark and Harrison. counties, obtained by Prof. John Collett

 

So, any fossil hunters from Indiana and do any of them know of any fossil collections by Dr. Knapp or Prof. John Collett?

 

I'm still searching, but would enjoy some help on this one. There are only 5 species without a photo or illustration, and this is one of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel you’re pain here. A lot of Paleozoic chondrichthyans we’re described in the 1800’s and many have not been revisited, which makes finding photos tough. I’ve been trying to do what you’re doing but for Edestus, and have not had much luck so far.

 

Out of curiosity, are all 16 still valid? I know Petalodus is one of the more commonly found teeth with a pretty global distribution, so I’d guess there are at least a few papers revising the genus.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, connorp said:

I feel you’re pain here. A lot of Paleozoic chondrichthyans we’re described in the 1800’s and many have not been revisited, which makes finding photos tough. I’ve been trying to do what you’re doing but for Edestus, and have not had much luck so far.

 

Out of curiosity, are all 16 still valid? I know Petalodus is one of the more commonly found teeth with a pretty global distribution, so I’d guess there are at least a few papers revising the genus.

I'm using the Paleobiology Database which I assume to them they find all 16 valid. However a friend of mine helped me figure out that one of them is a nomum nudum, which I found out today means vacant or naked name. The original describer listed it as a description coming soon species and never followed up. However someone else described one 20+ years later. Problem is, based on what? So I may be down to 15 or less. The The Interim Register of Marine and Nonmarine Genera lists 12 species. The EOL lists 12 as well. I believe I'll be up to 8 or 9 holotype photos soon, so I have been finding them. It's part of the reason why I am doing it. I want all of this data out there, public so future researchers can get to it quickly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...