古生物学报
古生物學報
고생물학보
ATCA PALAEONTOLOGICA SINICA
2009年
4期
695-700
,共6页
晚出异名%Palaeolenus%Megapalaeolenus%三叶虫%寒武纪
晚齣異名%Palaeolenus%Megapalaeolenus%三葉蟲%寒武紀
만출이명%Palaeolenus%Megapalaeolenus%삼협충%한무기
Junior synonym%Palaeolenus%Megapalaeolenus%trilobite%Cambrian
作者2004年根据保存于法国的模式标本和产自我国三峡地区的新材料以及对以往所发现的化石材料的研究,认为Megapalaeolenus Chang,1966一属不能成立,是Palaeolenus Mansuy,1912的晚出异名;其模式种Palaeolenus deprati Mansuy,1912也是Palaeolenus的模式种Palaeolenus douvillei,Mansuy,1912的晚出异名.提出属名Megapalaeolenus Chang和种名Palaeolenusdeprati Mansuy均应废弃的结论.最近,罗惠麟等发表了一系列采自模式标本产地附近的标本,为笔者的上述结论提供了更有力的证据.根据这些新材料,笔者不同意罗惠麟等认为Megapalaeolenus继续有效、Palaeolenusdeprati能够成立的观点.
作者2004年根據保存于法國的模式標本和產自我國三峽地區的新材料以及對以往所髮現的化石材料的研究,認為Megapalaeolenus Chang,1966一屬不能成立,是Palaeolenus Mansuy,1912的晚齣異名;其模式種Palaeolenus deprati Mansuy,1912也是Palaeolenus的模式種Palaeolenus douvillei,Mansuy,1912的晚齣異名.提齣屬名Megapalaeolenus Chang和種名Palaeolenusdeprati Mansuy均應廢棄的結論.最近,囉惠麟等髮錶瞭一繫列採自模式標本產地附近的標本,為筆者的上述結論提供瞭更有力的證據.根據這些新材料,筆者不同意囉惠麟等認為Megapalaeolenus繼續有效、Palaeolenusdeprati能夠成立的觀點.
작자2004년근거보존우법국적모식표본화산자아국삼협지구적신재료이급대이왕소발현적화석재료적연구,인위Megapalaeolenus Chang,1966일속불능성립,시Palaeolenus Mansuy,1912적만출이명;기모식충Palaeolenus deprati Mansuy,1912야시Palaeolenus적모식충Palaeolenus douvillei,Mansuy,1912적만출이명.제출속명Megapalaeolenus Chang화충명Palaeolenusdeprati Mansuy균응폐기적결론.최근,라혜린등발표료일계렬채자모식표본산지부근적표본,위필자적상술결론제공료경유력적증거.근거저사신재료,필자불동의라혜린등인위Megapalaeolenus계속유효、Palaeolenusdeprati능구성립적관점.
Based on examination of the monotype of Palaeolenus deprati Mansuy,1912(a species designated by Chang(Zhang,1966)as the type species of his new genus Megapalaeolenus Chang,1966)and our palaeolenid material from western Hubei,the authors(2004)concluded that Palaeolenus deprati is a j unior synonym of the type speties of Palaeolenus Mansuy,1912,Palaeolenus douvillei Mansuy,1912,and that the genus Megapalaeolenus should be regarded as a j unior synonym of Palaeolenus.Recently,Luo et al.(2007,2008)reported rich material of palaeolenid trilobites from localities close tO the type localities of both P.douvillei and P.departi in eastern Yunnan.The new material is important not only because it comes from the type area of Palaeolenus but also provides further evidences to confirm our earlier interpretation.The new material demonstrates that the morphological characters of "Megapalaeolenus"and"M.deprati"are almost indistinguishable in various aspects from PalaeolenU$and P.douvillei respectively and,therefore,it is no longer appropriate to treat Megapalaeolenus and Palaeolenus deprati as valid taxa as suggested by LUO et al.(2007,2008).