Open ahahn-gbif opened 1 year ago
It appears Californosaurus perrini was originally incorrectly entered from PBDB ref 33848, along with several opinions that also appear to be incorrectly entered. Shastasaurus perrini was later independently entered correctly from Merriam's original publication [PBDB ref 64104]. Right now both names exist independently, but should not.
Describe the problem: According to feedback received at GBIF helpdesk, the synonymization of Shastasaurus perrini and Californosaurus perrini has the names swapped, regarding the temporal sequence or their description:
Link to effected paleobiodb webpages: https://paleobiodb.org/classic/basicTaxonInfo?taxon_no=170861
Literature references: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044106227234&view=1up&seq=31
(informing the submitter of the issue to GBIF of this issue report via email, in case further interaction is recommended)
Original feedback, received via email to gbif.org (June 20th, 2023):
"On the following page, https://www.gbif.org/species/8547282
we can read this comment: Issues: Published earlier than parent name
In fact this species was first described by John Campbell Merriam on 1902 with the protonym of Shastasaurus perrini. So you have to probably replace Shastasaurus perrini (Merriam, 1902) by Shastasaurus perrini Merriam, 1902
Next, on 1934, Oskar Kuhn created the Californosaurus genus and change the previous taxon to Californosaurus perrini (Merriam, 1902) Then the issue dissepears...
Please have a look on the original paper wrote by Merriam to verify the protonym https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044106227234&view=1up&seq=31"