Abstract
Only a crude line drawing of the holotype tooth of the shark Petalodus ohioensis Safford, 1853 has ever been published, and the location of that specimen has long been unknown. The discovery of a cast of the holotype in the collections of the Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History demonstrates that P. alleghaniensis Leidy, 1856, is a junior subjective synonym of P. ohioensis, thus resolving a long-standing dispute.
Highlights
The discovery of teeth from the Late Paleozoic shark, Petalodus, from the near the top of the Permian “lower Cutler beds” of the Cutler Group in southeastern Utah, led to a brief description and illustration of many important holotypes and referred specimens in order to determine the taxon to which the lower Cutler teeth belonged (Carpenter and Ottinger, 2018)
One crucial specimen that could not be located for photographic inclusion was the holotype of P. ohioensis Safford, 1853 from the Cambridge Limestone of the Conemaugh Formation in Ohio
Specimens have been referred to this species (e.g., Hay, 1895; Lucas and others, 2011; Carpenter and Ottinger, 2018) based on the crude illustration by Safford (1853). This specimen is crucial for resolving the issue of whether P. alleghaniensis is a separate taxon from P. ohioensis or a junior subjective synonym of P. ohioensis (e.g., Hay, 1895; Zidek and Kietzke, 1993, 1996; Brusatte, 2007; Ivanov and others, 2009; Ginter and others, 2010; Carpenter and Ottinger, 2018)
Summary
The discovery of teeth from the Late Paleozoic shark, Petalodus, from the near the top of the Permian “lower Cutler beds” of the Cutler Group in southeastern Utah, led to a brief description and illustration of many important holotypes and referred specimens in order to determine the taxon to which the lower Cutler teeth belonged (Carpenter and Ottinger, 2018). Specimens have been referred to this species (e.g., Hay, 1895; Lucas and others, 2011; Carpenter and Ottinger, 2018) based on the crude illustration by Safford (1853) (see figures 1A and 1B). Hay (1895) raised the possibility that P. ohioensis had priority over P. alleghaniensis, as well as P. destructor named by Newberry and Worthen (1866) and his own P. securiger Because he did not think Safford’s drawings were wholly accurate and because the whereabouts of Safford’s specimen was unknown for comparison, he only synonymized P. destructor with P. ohioensis based on similarities of the crowns and sizes. This position, has not been followed (e.g., Hay, 1902; Hansen, 1985, 1996; Dalla Vecchia, 1988; Zidek and Kietzke, 1993; Brusatte, 2007; Ginter and others, 2010; Carpenter and Ottinger, 2018)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
