Comment on the paper written by Gutiérrez-Marco et al. (2017)

Joan Amado

doi:10.4401/ag-7731

Abstract

Recently, in an article written by Gutiérrez-Marco et al. and published in Annals of Geophysics [60, Fast Track 7, 2017], there are some incorrect affirmations written against my work in the paleontological field that I have been carried out for more than 10 years on new species of trilobites from the Ordovician of Morocco. They have questioned the quality of my work but also that of my collaborators and the institutions with which I am collaborating, particularly the Geological Museum of the Seminario of Barcelona (Spain), an institution that has been doing geological research since 1874. For this reason, I will present here some evidences that show the incorrectness of such statements reported in the paper by Gutiérrez-Marco et al. [2017]

Highlights

This situation dates back to 2010, when Dr Gutiérrez-Marco made a trip to Morocco, at a time when the study of the new Ordovician trilobite faunas that were appearing in that region was practically carried out only by me and collaborators, Vela and Corbacho [2007; 2009], Corbacho [2008; 2011; 2014] Corbacho and Vela [2010; 2011; 2013], Corbacho and Kier [2011], LópezSoriano and Corbacho [2012], Corbacho and López-Soriano [2012; 2013] and Corbacho et al, [2014], with some notable exceptions such as those made by Dr Richard Fortey [2009; 2010; 2011]
In 2015, at an International Congress held in Morocco, Dr Gutiérrez-Marco already presented a communication stating that the trilobites I had described from the Bou Nemrou deposits at El-Kaid Errami [Corbacho, 2011] had been made with pieces of different specimens [Gutierrez-Marco et al, 2015]
1) It is false that some of the holotypes and paratypes of the new species described in my articles have been sold through the Internet

Summary

INTRODUCTION

This situation dates back to 2010, when Dr Gutiérrez-Marco made a trip to Morocco, at a time when the study of the new Ordovician trilobite faunas that were appearing in that region was practically carried out only by me and collaborators, Vela and Corbacho [2007; 2009], Corbacho [2008; 2011; 2014] Corbacho and Vela [2010; 2011; 2013], Corbacho and Kier [2011], LópezSoriano and Corbacho [2012], Corbacho and López-Soriano [2012; 2013] and Corbacho et al, [2014], with some notable exceptions such as those made by Dr Richard Fortey [2009; 2010; 2011]. A similar episode was later repeated at the 6th International Conference on Trilobites and their Relatives held in Tallinn (Estonia) in 2017 [Gutiérrez-Marco et al, 2017]. This effort to discredit my work internationally reaches a new phase with the publication of the article mentioned above, which forces me to make the following considerations. All these specimens are kept in the museums indicated in the corresponding publications, where they remain available to any member of the scientific community who wishes to examine them and verify their authenticity. 2) Regarding the certificate of authenticity corresponding to the topotype of Uralichas hispanicus tardus Vela and Corbacho, 2009 mentioned in Figure 1 of the article by Gutiérrez-Marco et al [2017] and which is said not to be a completely real fossil because it presents epoxy resin in cephalon, thorax and pigidium, a photograph (Figure 2) is attached under ultraviolet light of this specimen in which it can be seen that the only resin that appears in it corresponds to where the broken part of the matrix to the level of pygid-

Joan CORBACHO

FINAL REMARKS