El famoso paleontólogo Louis Dollo analizó diversos grupos de reptiles fósiles, incluyendo tortugas. Entre ellas, se interesó por la fauna de quelonios marinos del Eoceno de Bélgica. En una de sus notas, Dollo indicó la presencia del esqueleto parcial de un posible nuevo taxon, al que aludió como ‘Oligochelone rupeliensis’, pero que no fue formalmente descrito ni figurado. Más de un siglo después, este espécimen permanece inédito, de manera que nunca se ha propuesto una diagnosis para la especie, ni se ha evaluado su validez. Su estudio detallado se ha presentado en las XXXIX Jornadas de la Sociedad Española de Paleontología, recientemente celebradas en La Coruña. El resumen de esta contribución, cuyo título es “First detailed study of the Belgian Eocene sea turtle ‘Oligochelone rupeliensis’”, es el siguiente:
In 1909, the famous paleontologist Louis Dollo announced, in a paper about the Belgian fossil vertebrates, a new Oligocene (Rupelian) genus and species of sea turtle, ‘Oligochelone rupeliensis’. He indicated that it was established for a specimen that preserved the complete carapace and several appendicular bones, being characterized as “a typical marine turtle”. No further information, but neither photographs or drawings, were provided by him. He planned to publish the study of this species in the future, but this did not happen. Only a schematic drawing of the plastron of that specimen, as well as a photograph of a tibia attributed to this taxon without justification, were presented, by another author, seventy years later. The first-hand study of the specimen considered by Dollo allows us to observe that it does not preserve any tibia, so that attribution cannot be supported. Therefore, except for that imprecise drawing of the plastron published more than four decades ago, no additional information was available so far. In fact, ‘Oligochelone rupeliensis’ was recognized as a nomen nudum. After a preliminary analysis of the specimen considered by Dollo, one of us (APG) and other collaborators recently indicated, without justification, that, although ‘Oligochelone rupeliensis’ could be closely related to the Eochelone representatives, it differs from all defined members of Cheloniidae. Therefore, we point out that a detailed anatomical study of this form, as well as its comparison with other species, would be necessary to propose, for the first time, a diagnosis, if its specific validity can be confirmed. Taking this into account, that partial skeleton has been analyzed in detail by us. To improve the comparative framework, both the type material and additional individuals from all Eocene and Oligocene cheloniid taxa recognized for the Belgian record have also been analyzed first-hand. The preliminary results are presented here.
-----
Más información:
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario