Type ichnospecies: Anchisauripus sillimani (Figs., A, B, below).
Discussion: Anchisauripus is presently believed
by us to be a nomen dubium because it was founded on inderminate
material.
Anchisauripus sillimani
Ichnospecies Anchisauripus sillimani (E. Hitchcock)
Ornithichnites tuberosus (in part) E. Hitchcock
1841, p. 486, Pl. 37, Fig. 21.
Ornithichnites tuberosus (in part) E. Hitchcock
1843, p. 256 (check)
Ornithichnites sillimani E. Hitchcock 1843, p.
255.
Eubrontes dananus E. Hitchcock 1845, p. 23.
Brontozoum sillimani E. Hitchcock 1847, p. 49.
Brontozoum sillimanium E. Hitchcock 1848, p. 49.
Anchisauripus dananus Lull 1904, p. 288.
Anchisauripus sillimani Lull 1915, p. 181.
Anchisauripus dananus Lull 1953, p. 168.
Grallator( Anchisauripus) sillimani
Olsen
et al. 1992, p. 507, Fig. 12B.
Anchisauripus sillimani Olsen et al. 1998, p.
592, Fig. 12B
The lectoholotype of A. sillimani (AC 4/6) is a natural mold with indistinct pad impressions. It is an underprint from close to the actual layer trod upon. There are a few breaks in the rock that impinge on the morphology of the track, especially posteriorly.
In the Anonymous post-1865 "Synopsis" of the ichnogenera and ichnospecies in the Hitchcock collection, AC 9/14 (from Middletown, Connecticut) is listed as the type specimen of Brontozoum sillimanium. Presumably this citation is what led Lull (1904) to list AC 9/14 as the type specimen of the type ichnospecies of his new ichnogenus Anchisauripus,although he gives it as Anchisauripus dananus rather than A. sillimani, which has priority. Lull (1915, 1953) later corrects this error in the specific epithet and refers to the correct prior synonym. Clearly the holotype of A. sillimani must be AC 4/6 not the more famous AC 9/14, because the latter was not discovered until many years after the former.
Conclusion: By the standards we have been applying
to tetrapod ichnotaxa, we feel that both AC 4/6 and AC 35/31 are in fact
indeterminate. Most of the pads are indistinct and there is even some question
of which foot is represented by the tracks. Therefore, the species name
Anchisauripus
sillimaniHitchcock 1841 and the genus name Anchisauripus Lull
1904 are nomina dubia. The genus name Anchisauripus, thus
should not be used, because biologically meaningful comparisions to the
type specimen can not be made.