Talk:Cycnorhamphus

[Untitled]

Cycnorhamphus is actually a valid genus of pterosaur related to Gallodactylus (Bennett, 1996). Cycnorhamphus suevicus, the type species of Cycnorhamphus was originally named Pterodactylus suevicus in 1855 by Friedrich August von Quenstedt, but in 1870 Harry Seeley declared it a new pterosaur genus, which he officially named Cycnorhamphus. . It is sad that the holotype of C. suevicus was destroyed by US Army Air Force bombing in World War II. Bennett (1996) declared Cycnorhamphus a distinct genus related to Gallodactylus. All the details written above are from Bennett (1996).

Cycnorhamphus fraasi is a junior synonym of Diopecephalus longicollum (Bennett, 1996).

The articles for Cycnorhamphus and Gallodactylus should be updated for the reasons given above.

Quenstedt, F. A., 1855, Uber Pterodactylus suevicus im lithographischen Schiefer Wurttembergs: 52pp.

Seeley, H. G., 1870, The Ornithosauria: an elementary study of the bones of Pterodactyles: 130p. Cambridge.

On the Taxonomic Status of Cycnorhamphus and Gallodactylus (Pterosauria: Pterodactyloidea) S. Christopher Bennett Journal of Paleontology, Vol. 70, No. 2 (Mar., 1996), pp. 335-338

Thank you. I've made some changes based on your source. I have made only a reference to Bennett's findings, as I don't know if other authors agree with him. I'm assuming Bennett makes C.fraasi a junior synonym of C. suevicus, though I don't know when he did it and cannot consult the source you cite. Also, there seems to be a disagreement between the article's reference and your reference on Quenstedt's naming in 1855. Is it Pterodactylus or Gallodactylus? Since you obviously has access to the source, I happily invite you to make changes.--Gazzster 11:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

First the article states that two species are considered valid, then it says the two species have been synonymised. What's right? FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• And by the way, does the "Painten Pelican" mean that Gallodactylus will perhaps be resurrected? That's kind of how I read this: http://pterosaur-net.blogspot.dk/2010/05/on-nature-of-palaeontology-and-throwing.html FunkMonk (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

All current sources consider the French and German specimens to be conspecific, so only one species is currently considered valid. That blog post seems to treat them informally as distinct for the sake of discussion, but in Witton's (more recent) book he considers the Pelican to be an ontogenetic or sexual morph of C. suevicus (=G. canjuresensis). Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)