Clypeaster surarui, Carrasco & Trif, 2022

Carrasco, Jose Francisco & Trif, Nicolae, 2023, Clypeaster Surarui (Echinoidea, Eocene) A New Name For Clypeaster Transsylvanicus (Șuraru, Gábos & Șuraru, 1967) Preoccupied Name, Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (1), pp. 41-43 : 41-43

Clypeaster surarui nomen novum

Synonymy

1967 Clypeaster (Palaeanthus) transsylvanicus Șuraru, Gábos & Șuraru, 1967, p. 196 , fig. 2-13

________________________________

2021 Clypeaster cf. transsylvanicus Șuraru, Gábos & Șuraru, 1967 , 1967; Carrasco & Trif, p. 744

2021 Clypeaster transsylvanicus Șuraru, Gábos & Șuraru, 1967 ; Carrasco & Trif, p. 744

The nomenclatural change was added to ZooBank under the code urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:CB878B0A-C703-4994-8DCF-B54F4D0D0A34

Some data about the holotype and other specimens of the species is reproduced below from Carrasco & Trif (2021, p. 744): “The holotype described by Șuraru et al. (1967) is number BBUPSM 15391. Furthermore, six other specimens were designated as 'tipoid' with the following current numbers BBUPSM 15392a, 15392b, 15392c, 15393b, 15293c and 15393d. In addition to the holotype, all the 'tipoids' have been figured by Șuraru et al. (1967, fig. 4-5 and 7-13)ˮ The concept of 'tipoid' is equivalent to the one of syntype, according to Richter (1948) ˮ. However, the ICZN in the “Recommendation 73D. Labelling of paratypes ” states: “After the holotype has been labelled, any remaining specimens of the type series [Art. 72.4.5] should be labelled " paratype " to identify the components of the original type series.”. Thus, we recognize that Șuraru et al., 1967 “tipoids” should better be considered paratypes, not syntypes. ICZN (Articles 73.1. Holotypes and 73.2. Syntypes) clearly states that the existence of a holotype excludes the consideration of the syntypes for the rest of the specimens of a type series. The designation of a holotype implies that the rest of the specimens of the type series are paratypes.

The Palaeanthus subgenus Lamb [in Mortensen, 1948; p. 23, fig. 23a-d] (= Paleanthus Lambert, 1912 ) used by Șuraru et al. (1967) is assimilated to the Clypeaster genus Lambert , 1912 (see Mortensen, 1948; Durham 1955, 1966; Smith & Kroh, 2011). Furthermore, ICZN Article 57.4 states that “The presence of different subgeneric names placed in parentheses between the same generic name and identical species-group names is irrelevant to the homonymy between the names concerned”.

The species was named in recognition of the main author of the work describing the Eocene species, Dr. Nicolae Șuraru.

As the illustrations of the species in the original article are of a particulary poor quality, we considered it appropriate to illustrate here again the holotype and the three best preserved paratypes (namely BBUPSM 15392a, 15392b and 15392c).

For each specimen in Șuraru et al., 1967, we also present below a synthetic table ( Table 1) that summarizes data like: the present systematic status, register number, original sample number, original figure number and figure number and letters in the present paper. We suggest that specimen BBUPSM 15393a, which was not figured by Șuraru et al., (1967), considering that it was collected in the same locality where the original type was obtained, be considered a topotype. The specimen is being kept with the rest of the material mentioned and the label clearly indicates that it was collected by N. Șuraru, L. Gábos and M. Șuraru from Turnu Roșu, Sibiu .