Colbert, E.H., 1935. The proper use of the generic name Nestoritherium. Journal of Mammalogy 16: 233-234
|
|
|
|
| |
| Location: |
World |
| Subject: |
Taxonomy - Evolution |
| Species: |
Fossil |
 |
|
The proper use of the generic name Nestoritherium
The genus Nestoritherium was founded by Kaup in 1859, in his ?Beitrage zur naheren Kenntniss der urweltlichen Saugethiere,' Heft 4, p. iv. It was based on Chalicotherium sivalense (Falconer and Cautley). In Hugh Falconer's ?Palaeontological Memoirs,' vol. 1, p. 223, there is a statement regarding Nestoritherium that has led to a considerable amount of confusion among students of the Chalicotherioidea. Falconer's remarks are quoted below.
?Chalcotherium. Munich, June 15, 1861. - Most interesting of all the Pikermi collection are a set of specimens of a very large species of the same genus as our Sewalik Chalicotherium. This is the Nestoritherium Kaup (Beitrage, viertes Heft. 1859), which is figured and described by Wagner (1857) under the name of Rhinoceros pachygnathus.'
This statement by Falconer led Holland and Peterson (Mem. Carnegie Mus., vol. 3, no.2, p.207, 1914) to suppose that Nestoritherium was founded on one of several specimens, described by Wagner as Rhinoceros pachygnathus. Since the specimen figured by Wagner happens to be identical with Ancylotherium pentelici (Gaudry and Lartet), Holland and Peterson concluded that the type of Nestodtherium must be the species from Pikermi. They write: ?From the foregoing it is seen that the generic name Nestoritherium has priority over Ancylotherium, the type species being pachygnathum Wagner, a homonym, which must be dropped according to the laws of nomenclature, and replaced by pentelicum Gaudry et Lartet, which is identical, and also has priority.' Holland and Peterson created a new genus, Circotherium, for the reception of the Siwalik species, Chalicotherium sivalense.
Dr. Matthew (Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., vol. 56, pp. 516-517, 1929) concluded that Arestoritherium was founded either on the species Rhinoceros pachygnathus Wagner (in which case it would be a rhinoceros and not a chalicothere), or on one certain specimen figured by Wagner as Rhinoceros pachygnathus. In the latter case, according to Matthew Nestoritherium would be based on a ?species innominata' of Kaup.
Matthew, like Holland and Peterson, made the mistake of supposing that Rhinoceros pachygnathus is the type of Nestoritherium, in spite of the fact that Palmer in his Index Generum Mammalium, 1904, had correctly designated Chalicotherium sivalense as the type.
I recently wrote to Dr. A. Tindall Hopwood of the British Museum for help on this problem, because he had access not only to Kaup's ?Beitrage,' but also to the collections and notes of Dr. Falconer. I take the liberty of quoting from his letter: ?I have waded through Kaup's somewhat confusing account of Nestoritherium, without finding a single mention of Wagner, or of Wagner's rhinoceros, but a very definite reference to Chalicotherium sivalensis Fale. & Cant. There is no doubt that this species is the genotype of Nestoritherium; Kaup confirms this in his introduction to Heft IV, for on p. iv he speaks of the 'Indian genus Nestoritherium.'?
From the above it is clear that Nestoritherium Kaup, 1859, is based on Chalicotherium sivalense (Falconer and Cautley) and that the name Circotherium Holland and Peterson, 1914, is a synonym. The Pikermi species is properly referable to the genus Ancylotherium Gaudry, 1863.
|
|
|
The proper use of the generic name Nestoritherium
File available
details
Original text on this topic: