Yoda's mystical objects collection

[Wrangellian]

On 7/21/2023 at 10:26 AM, Yoda said:

@Wrangellian

D conradi sounded familiar….. I have one too

Yes, that's one I don't have but looks like the Dicso's that I've seen in my searches. Nice one!

[Yoda]

@Bobby Rico

This is my Spinosaur tooth 

 

 

[Bobby Rico]

1 hour ago, Yoda said:

This is my Spinosaur tooth

Hay that look fine to me. As I think you said to me it represents an pretty amazing creature. 

[Yoda]

@Bobby Rico

This is my Lloyddolithus lloydii - negative 

 

 

[Bobby Rico]

28 minutes ago, Yoda said:

This is my Lloyddolithus lloydii - negative 

That a real nice piece .  I also get an  optical illusion of it been positive.   

[Bobby Rico]

On 3/4/2023 at 1:38 PM, Yoda said:

Picture Jasper arrived today

Marrakesh, Morocco

That is really beautiful. 
 

great thread pal. 

Edited August 6, 2023 by Bobby Rico

[Yoda]

I was trying to recall what I have posted that got lost since the Aug 8th

Don’t think I had shown this one yet…

 

[Bobby Rico]

Very nice, I think you did show a snake vertebra before but it was not this one. 

Edited August 21, 2023 by Bobby Rico

[Yoda]

17 hours ago, Bobby Rico said:

Very nice, I think you did show a snake vertebra before but it was not this one. 

Earlier in this thread - around about April / May I think it was 

[Tidgy's Dad]

Very nice Lloydolithus lloydi. 

(one d in Lloydolithus, one i at the end of lloydi.) 

[piranha]

52 minutes ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

...one i at the end of lloydi.

 

 

 

Morris, S.F. 1988
A Review of British Trilobites, Including a Synoptic Revision of Salter's Monograph.
Palaeontographical Society London, 140(574):1-316

[Tidgy's Dad]

4 minutes ago, piranha said:

 

 

 

Morris, S.F. 1988
A Review of British Trilobites, Including a Synoptic Revision of Salter's Monograph.
Palaeontographical Society London, 140(574):1-316

Thank you, I'm forty years out of date, as usual. 

Sorry, @Yoda 

Edited August 24, 2023 by Tidgy's Dad

[Tidgy's Dad]

43 minutes ago, piranha said:

 

 

 

Morris, S.F. 1988
A Review of British Trilobites, Including a Synoptic Revision of Salter's Monograph.
Palaeontographical Society London, 140(574):1-316

It's interesting that Murchison named it Trinucleus Lloydi but when it was moved to Lloydolithus by Bancroft in 1933, the capital letter for the specific name was correctly dropped and the genus lost an i to become lloydi.

Scott, do you know if this is because of the Latin declensions or whatnot, I'm rather afraid I've forgotten most of my Latin. 

And why did Morris change it back again, please?   Or did he, was this a typo? 

This didn't come out very well, but on page 127 of this PhD thesis from 2002 for instance it lists 1988 Lloydolithus lloydi (Murchison); Morris, p 131.

 

1839 Trinucleus Lloydii Murchison, pp. 363,650, pl. 23, fig. 4.

1853 Trinucleus Lloydii Murchison; Salter, dec. 7, p. 1 of pl. 7, figs 1,3,5. 127

1853 Trinucleus Lloydii var. fi Corndensis Salter, p. 1 of pl. 7, figs 2,6.

1933 Lloydolithus lloydi (Murchison); Bancroft, p. 2.

1941 Lloydolithus lloydi (Murchison); Whittington, p. 24, pl. 6, figs 24,28.

1958 Lloydolithus lloydi (Murchison); Whittard, p. 79, pl. 11, figs 4-18.

1975 Lloydolithus lloydi (Murchison); Hughes et al., p. 577, pl. 7. figs 81,82.

1981 Lloydolithus lloydi (Murchison); Wilcox and Lockley, pp. 299,312, text-figs 2, 6, table I.

1988 Lloydolithus lloydi (Murchison); Morris, p. 131.

see Whittard (1958) for full synonym

 

Do you have Morris 1988, please, I am curious now. 

[piranha]

27 minutes ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

And why did Morris change it back again, please?   Or did he, was this a typo? 

 

 

Morris 1988 is only a catalog of British trilobites without any taxonomic changes. It includes various name combinations listed from the literature.

 

Jell & Adrain 2003 also follows the original designation: Trinucleus lloydii  MURCHISON, 1839

 

Jell, P.A., Adrain, J.M. 2003
Available Generic Names for Trilobites.

Queensland Museum Memoirs, 48(2):331-551  PDF LINK

[DPS Ammonite]

1 hour ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

the capital letter for the specific name was correctly dropped and the genus lost an i to become lloydi.

Scott, do you know if this is because of the Latin declensions or whatnot, I'm rather afraid I've forgotten most of my Latin. 

One i or two? With all the thousands of new species named recently who is the authority to determine how to spell a specific name so that it matches the declension of the generic name? If you want to erect a new name what Latin expert/reference do you consult?

 

 

Maybe some of our members that are taking Latin can talk to their teachers. What is correct: Lloydolithus lloydi or Lloydolithus lloydii?

 

 

Edited August 24, 2023 by DPS Ammonite

[Yoda]

@Tidgy's Dad , @piranha , @DPS Ammonite

 

Interesting discussion on naming. 

 

Have a look here : 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_nomenclature  Under the section "codes"

 

My understanding was that if something is named after a man, it is double ii 

So in this case, if it is lloydii, after Mr Lloyd. Then the double ii is correct 

 

[DPS Ammonite]

Lloydolithus lloydii is correct.

 

When using Wikipedia it is best to go to the source rather than relying only on what Wikipedia says. Look at the actual ICZN Code: https://www.iczn.org/the-code/the-code-online/?nfv=&booksection=constitution

 

There appears to be a lot of help to determine how to properly form a taxonomic name.

 

Assuming the name of Trinucleus Lloydii

in the original reference is correct, the ICZN Code says that the original spelling of the specific name should be kept when it is based on a personal name and ends in i or ii when moved to a new genus.

 

If the specific name was originally capitalized then the Code says that it must now be small case.

 

See article 33.4:

 

“33.4. Use of -i for -ii and vice versa, and other alternative spellings, in subsequent spellings of species-group names

The use of the genitive ending -i in a subsequent spelling of a species-group name that is a genitive based upon a personal name in which the correct original spelling ends with -ii, or vice versa, is deemed to be an incorrect subsequent spelling, even if the change in spelling is deliberate; the same rule applies to the endings -ae and -iae, -orum and -iorum, and -arum and -iarum.”

 

“Example. The subsequent use by Waterhouse of the spelling bennettii for the name established as Macropus bennetti Waterhouse, 1837 does not make the subsequent spelling an available name even if the act was intentional.”

 

 

Edited August 25, 2023 by DPS Ammonite

[Yoda]

Another 2 Graptolites 

 

 

[Tidgy's Dad]

Really loving your graptolites. 

[Yoda]

Found this at a 2nd hand book shop 

Published in 1975. So a bit out of date 

But it does discuss some ideas that are now considered to be accurate. 
 

 

[Yoda]

This arrived for me last week

Quite a good size - about 10cm long 

 

 

[Bobby Rico]

On 9/3/2023 at 11:52 AM, Yoda said:

Found this at a 2nd hand book shop 

Published in 1975. So a bit out of date 

But it does discuss some ideas that are now considered to be accurate. 

I just love vintage dinosaur  books like this , it is like looking at old back and white photos of towns that you know. There are somethings that are very familiar but lots have now changed to the point that the photo’s location is almost unrecognisable . I don’t know if I make sense here but I am enjoying your thread anyway.

 

cheers Bobby 

Edited September 11, 2023 by Bobby Rico

[Yoda]

A recent Ammonite addition 

 

 

[Bobby Rico]

On 9/13/2023 at 3:17 AM, Yoda said:

A recent Ammonite addition 

Oh that’s nice

Edited,I used this emoji but I have know idea what it means but I hope means nice buy

[Tidgy's Dad]

4 hours ago, Bobby Rico said:

Oh that’s nice  

Edited,I used this emoji but I have know idea what it means but I hope means nice buy

It's Chlamyphorus truncatus, the pink fairy armadillo.

Nice ammonite, Yoda!