New azhdarchoid pterosaur from Big Bend National Park, western Texas

[DD1991]

A new pterosaur-related paper is out online if anyone is interested:

 

Campos, H.B.N., 2021 A new azhdarchoid pterosaur from the Late Cretaceous Javelina Formation of Texas. Biologia. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11756-021-00841-7  

 

If anyone is aware, the holotype of Javelinadactylus sagebieli was discovered in 1986 and listed as Quetzalcoatlus sp. by Peter Wellnhofer in his 1991 book on pterosaurs. However, later researchers regarded TMM 42489-2 as a relative of the mid-Cretaceous genus Tupuxuara, and it became clear that more than one pterosaur genus soared the skies over western Texas during the Maastrichtian.

[Troodon]

Paper has been retracted, info on attached link

 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11756-021-00841-7

[FossilDAWG]

Ugly!  Apparently the author of the retracted paper did not have ownership of the data, instead he worked from photographs of a specimen that was actually in the possession of other researchers, who had already submitted their paper to a different journal.

 

I'm curious about the nomenclature issue this brings up.  The retracted paper, submitted Sept 30 2020 and published July 31 2021, introduced a new genus and species (Javelinadactylus sagebieli), with specimen TMM 42489-2 as the holotype.  The other paper, submitted November 1 2017 but published December 14 2021, described the same specimen and named it Wellnhopterus brevirostrus.  This paper is a large study that reevaluates the entire genus Quetzalcoatlus and names several new species as well as Wellnhopterus brevirostrus.  The problem is according to ICZN (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) rules the first published name is the valid one, but in this case the paper that first uses that name is now retracted.  I'm not sure if the ICZN adjusts their priority rule for retracted papers.  Does anyone know? @jdp?

 

Don

[jdp]

I tend to avoid dealing with ICZN minutia, but my understanding is that in this case and in similar cases, it is the first reviser who establishes which of the two will hold precedent. My understanding is that Wellnhopterus will likely be the name that sticks, but who knows. 

[DD1991]

18 hours ago, FossilDAWG said:

Ugly!  Apparently the author of the retracted paper did not have ownership of the data, instead he worked from photographs of a specimen that was actually in the possession of other researchers, who had already submitted their paper to a different journal.

 

I'm curious about the nomenclature issue this brings up.  The retracted paper, submitted Sept 30 2020 and published July 31 2021, introduced a new genus and species (Javelinadactylus sagebieli), with specimen TMM 42489-2 as the holotype.  The other paper, submitted November 1 2017 but published December 14 2021, described the same specimen and named it Wellnhopterus brevirostrus.  This paper is a large study that reevaluates the entire genus Quetzalcoatlus and names several new species as well as Wellnhopterus brevirostrus.  The problem is according to ICZN (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) rules the first published name is the valid one, but in this case the paper that first uses that name is now retracted.  I'm not sure if the ICZN adjusts their priority rule for retracted papers.  Does anyone know? @jdp?

 

Don

The now-retracted paper in which the holotype of Wellnhopterus brevirostris is named Javelinadactylus sagebieli didn't mention that TMM 42489-2 also includes cervical vertebrae. If the editors of Biologia knew that Campos listed only the skull remains for TMM 42489-2 and that this specimen includes both cranial and post-cranial remains, then they would not have accepted Campos' paper for publication, given that the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology publication describing in detail and re-assessing all Quetzalcoatlus material was still in the process of publication.