Ichthyosaurus Taxonomy

[Ammojoe]

Hello Guys,

Here's a Question I have for people who know about Ichthyosaur's. I have a few Ichthyosaurus communis bones that i'm adding to trilobase, when adding fossils in you fill out certain fields, such as, Taxonomny. I need to fill out the Scientific Classification field but i'm unsure on some, does anybody know what they are.

I've done most of them but I need the following details for Ichthyosaurus commune:

Subclass,

Suborder,

Superfamily,

Subgenus.

What are the details for these?

Kind Regards,

Joe

Edited December 23, 2010 by fossily99

[Fossildude19]

Check this Link.

Hope that helps.

Regards,

[Ammojoe]

Hello Tim,

Thank's for the link, that's what I used for the majority of information. Unfortunately it doesn't have any of what i've mentioned in it.

Joe

[Raff]

Some paleontologists consider Ichthyopterygia a Sub-class, others simply a Order (Ichthyosauria) of incertae sedis

[Ammojoe]

Thank's Raff, i'll add that in. Do you know about the other 3?

Joe

[jpc]

Type in your genus on this site and you will be rewarded with great gobs of the info you want... (I hope, I've been using it for inverts, but I'm sure verts are on there, too). The Plaeobiology Database

[piranha]

Hi Joe, there are many great references right here at TFF.

Fruitbat's pdf library has over two dozen articles available here.

Paleobiology Database is also very helpful for the distribution and stratigraphic origin of the various ichthyosaur taxa and species.

Global Names Index is a invaluable resource for citations and formal descriptions for any particular genus or species you wish to research more thoroughly.

UCMP Berkely has a wonderful set of pages on the subject here, section 9 in particular will give you the entire scoop on ichthyosaur classification.

Have fun and enjoy!

Edited December 23, 2010 by piranha

[Ammojoe]

Hello,

Many Thank's for the replies, very useful particulary the paleobiology database(Will use it for future reference!)

I still can't seem to find any of the three missing details, checked all the sites(Including Paleo Database) and still now luck. Does anybody know them, i'll check through Fruitbat's pages no, thank's for sharing them Joe.

Kind Regards,

Joe

[Fruitbat]

Since you're dealing with the genus Ichthyosaurus, it looks like your classification is:

Phylum: Chordata

Subphylum: Vertebrata

Superclass: Tetrapoda

Class: Sauropsida

Subclass: Diapsida

Superorder: Ichthyopterygia

Order: Ichthyosauria

Family: Ichthyosauridae

Unranked Clade: Thunnosauria

Genus: Ichthyosaurus

Species: communis

Thunnosauria is sometimes used on the Subfamily level. I haven't seen any reference to a subgenus for Ichthyosaurus.

NOTE: Taxonomy of organisms is always an 'iffy' thing and depends on which authority you happen to be using at the time. The above is the best I can find as of today.

-Joe

[jpc]

Since you're dealing with the genus Ichthyosaurus, it looks like your classification is:

Phylum: Chordata

Subphylum: Vertebrata

Superclass: Tetrapoda

Class: Sauropsida

Subclass: Diapsida

Superorder: Ichthyopterygia

Order: Ichthyosauria

Family: Ichthyosauridae

Unranked Clade: Thunnosauria

Genus: Ichthyosaurus

Species: communis

Thunnosauria is sometimes used on the Subfamily level. I haven't seen any reference to a subgenus for Ichthyosaurus.

NOTE: Taxonomy of organisms is always an 'iffy' thing and depends on which authority you happen to be using at the time. The above is the best I can find as of today.

-Joe

I have to agree with fruitbat.

But do not fret if sites like the Paleobiolgy Database don't give you all the details you want. I have found that some genera do not have any higher level classifications until you get to phylum or something like that. Bottom line, if the subgenus (or other) is not listed, don't sweat it. Most genera don't even have a subgenus, or a superfamily.

Edited December 24, 2010 by jpc

[Raff]

Since you're dealing with the genus Ichthyosaurus, it looks like your classification is:

Phylum: Chordata

Subphylum: Vertebrata

Superclass: Tetrapoda

Class: Sauropsida

Subclass: Diapsida

Superorder: Ichthyopterygia

Order: Ichthyosauria

Family: Ichthyosauridae

Unranked Clade: Thunnosauria

Genus: Ichthyosaurus

Species: communis

Thunnosauria is sometimes used on the Subfamily level. I haven't seen any reference to a subgenus for Ichthyosaurus.

NOTE: Taxonomy of organisms is always an 'iffy' thing and depends on which authority you happen to be using at the time. The above is the best I can find as of today.

-Joe

The correct Species is not communis, is Ichthyosaurus communis, so the Genus is Ichthyosaurus but the species is Ichthyosaurus communis, communis alone is a "specific epithet" but alone it has not any taxonomic significance.

Edited December 24, 2010 by Raff

[piranha]

The correct Species is not communis, is Ichthyosaurus communis, so the Genus is Ichthyosaurus but the species is Ichthyosaurus communis, communis alone is a "specific epithet" but alone it has not any taxonomic significance.

Hi Raff, thanks for the info on taxonomic rules.

I'm wondering now about the naming of communis?

Latin - com, together; with

Latin - munis, ready for service; give, make

? ? ? ?

Edited December 24, 2010 by piranha

[Raff]

communis means common in English , the English word common derives from Latin ! (my Latin is better than my English, in Italy at High school we study Latin 4-5 hours at week instead English only 2-3 hours both grammar and literature!)

[Ammojoe]

Hello,

That's very intresting and useful, i can't thank you enough. So,I guess, sometimes the full taxonomic data isn't available for every species.

Joe - If i was now to be a pain, could I ask would it be the same for Ichthyosaurus Breviceps apart from the exact species of course.

An intresting lesson learnt about the taxonomic rules, but sometimes when entering the details they come up twice. For example, if i enter 'Genus' into Trilobase as Ichthyosaurus and then 'Species', as Ichthyosaurus communis, it will say at the top Ichthyosaurus Ichthyosaurus communis. Yes the species Ichthyosaurus communis , Is named communis(From Common), because around the Lyme Regis area the species Ichthosaurus communis is the most common species by far!

Kind Regards,

Joe

[Ammojoe]

Just done a little more research and for Ichthyosauria on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyosaur), the class is Reptilia but you've got Sauropsida as your class Joe. Is it an error on wikipedia?

Joe

[piranha]

communis means common in English , the English word common derives from Latin ! (my Latin is better than my English, in Italy at High school we study Latin 4-5 hours at week instead English only 2-3 hours both grammar and literature!)

Thank you Raff, easy for you to say!

I just breezed right by that one in my unabridged and enormously large Latin dictionary.

I really managed to mangle that one thoroughly! I envy your mandatory Latin lessons growing up.

As evidenced here, even the most comprehensive book of words is limited by the skill of its reviewer.

Edited December 24, 2010 by piranha

[Fruitbat]

Raff....actually....Ichthyosaurus communis is not the species. It is the binomial which includes both the generic and specific names. Granted, communis by itself doesn't distinguish the animal but it is the species to which fossils of that particular Ichthyosaurus are referred. In general, the terms 'species' and 'specific epithet' are just two terms that refer to the same thing.

Joe (fossily99)...the sequence would be exactly the same for Ichthyosaurus breviceps as it is for I. communis. As for Reptilia vs Sauropsida....like I said, it depends on which authority you're using. There are multiple schools of thought regarding taxonomy. Sauropsida (considered by some authorities as an 'unranked' division and others as a full 'class') includes both the classical Reptilia, Dinosauria and Aves. The arguments between users of the older Linnaean taxonomy and those who subscribe to the tenets of phylogenetic systematics (including phenetics and cladistics) have thoroughly muddied the waters as far as higher level classification is concerned (while largely leaving the lower levels like genus and species alone). Thus...some authorities use the term Sauropsida while others use Reptilia, Dinosauria and Aves as separate classes. At this point in time...your guess is as good as anybody else's!

-Joe (the 'other' one)

[Ammojoe]

Raff....actually....Ichthyosaurus communis is not the species. It is the binomial which includes both the generic and specific names. Granted, communis by itself doesn't distinguish the animal but it is the species to which fossils of that particular Ichthyosaurus are referred. In general, the terms 'species' and 'specific epithet' are just two terms that refer to the same thing.

Joe (fossily99)...the sequence would be exactly the same for Ichthyosaurus breviceps as it is for I. communis. As for Reptilia vs Sauropsida....like I said, it depends on which authority you're using. There are multiple schools of thought regarding taxonomy. Sauropsida (considered by some authorities as an 'unranked' division and others as a full 'class') includes both the classical Reptilia, Dinosauria and Aves. The arguments between users of the older Linnaean taxonomy and those who subscribe to the tenets of phylogenetic systematics (including phenetics and cladistics) have thoroughly muddied the waters as far as higher level classification is concerned (while largely leaving the lower levels like genus and species alone). Thus...some authorities use the term Sauropsida while others use Reptilia, Dinosauria and Aves as separate classes. At this point in time...your guess is as good as anybody else's!

-Joe (the 'other' one)

Intresting stuff! I've learnt a lot and i'd like to thank you. Surely it would be much better to just have a universal system and be done with Reptilia,Dinosauria ETC. I think they just over complicate everything. I'll leave it as what you say, 'Sauropsida'.

Once Again Thank You,

Joe (English Joe That Is!)

[Raff]

Raff....actually....Ichthyosaurus communis is not the species. It is the binomial which includes both the generic and specific names. Granted, communis by itself doesn't distinguish the animal but it is the species to which fossils of that particular Ichthyosaurus are referred. In general, the terms 'species' and 'specific epithet' are just two terms that refer to the same thing.

Joe (fossily99)...the sequence would be exactly the same for Ichthyosaurus breviceps as it is for I. communis. As for Reptilia vs Sauropsida....like I said, it depends on which authority you're using. There are multiple schools of thought regarding taxonomy. Sauropsida (considered by some authorities as an 'unranked' division and others as a full 'class') includes both the classical Reptilia, Dinosauria and Aves. The arguments between users of the older Linnaean taxonomy and those who subscribe to the tenets of phylogenetic systematics (including phenetics and cladistics) have thoroughly muddied the waters as far as higher level classification is concerned (while largely leaving the lower levels like genus and species alone). Thus...some authorities use the term Sauropsida while others use Reptilia, Dinosauria and Aves as separate classes. At this point in time...your guess is as good as anybody else's!

-Joe (the 'other' one)

You are correct when you say that the binomial includes both the generic and specific names, but if I say that in the Genus Ichthyosaurus

there are the species communis , breviceps etc. im' not correct I have to say : " In the genus Ichthyosaurus there are the species I . communis , I. breviceps etc.

[Fruitbat]

Raff...

That is true...to communicate clearly you would have to include the generic name as well. However...communis, breviceps, conybeari, intermedius, etc. ARE the species level names within the genus Ichthyosaurus. Again...I agree that, by themselves, species names are useless but the species names are never used alone in formal communications. They are always included as a part of the binomial.

-Joe

[Raff]

Raff...

That is true...to communicate clearly you would have to include the generic name as well. However...communis, breviceps, conybeari, intermedius, etc. ARE the species level names within the genus Ichthyosaurus. Again...I agree that, by themselves, species names are useless but the species names are never used alone in formal communications. They are always included as a part of the binomial.

-Joe

I agree with you , I think we are saying the same thing in different ways! :-)

Edited December 24, 2010 by Raff

[Aramon]

I've got few works about Ichtyosaurids, maybe this one can help you?

http://www.mediafire.com/?ro2e30m4m3vl5aa

[oilshale]

Hi Joe, there are many great references right here at TFF.

Fruitbat's pdf library has over two dozen articles available here.

Paleobiology Database is also very helpful for the distribution and stratigraphic origin of the various ichthyosaur taxa and species.

Global Names Index is a invaluable resource for citations and formal descriptions for any particular genus or species you wish to research more thoroughly.

UCMP Berkely has a wonderful set of pages on the subject here, section 9 in particular will give you the entire scoop on ichthyosaur classification.

Have fun and enjoy!

Ion, Index to Organism Names, gathered from the scientific literature for Thomson Reuters' Zoological Record-database can be quite helpful too: ION

Thomas

[jpc]

Keep in mind also that cladistic taxonomy, which is all the rage in paleo these days, is doing away with all the Linnean taxonomic layers...family, order, class, etc. Cladistics is cool for id-ing what is related to what and how closely, but I like Linnean for organizing a collection.

[Fruitbat]

I sgree completely and emphatically, jpc!