I have noticed in a number of recent papers that Y. Tubularis and Y. trivialis were renamed Cuspiteuthis. would appreciate any views any one has and if this has been universally adopted. Thanks
Thanks for pointing that out, can't believe I'd missed it but I've just checked some recent papers starting with Riegraf's (2000) on Schlotheim's type material.
Basically, yes, I gather this is the situation:
Cuspiteuthis Abel 1916 has been formally reinstated over Youngibelus Riegraf, 1980 by Riegraf himself.
He applies it particularly to Belemnites acuarius Schlotheim, 1820 and he includes B. tubularis Young & Bird 1822 in the genus having previously demonstrated that it was very similar and a probable close ancestor (there's only a subzone gap between them).
Pinard et al (2014) believe they may even be the same species.
trivialis is the non-epirostrid form of tubularis (Doyle called it simpsoni in his monograph but later corrected it to trivialis in his very useful 2003 paper on Simpson's type specimens) so of course is the same genus.
I'm not quite sure whether B. tubularis technically needs formal revision or whether Riegraf's earlier work counts (in 1984 with other authors) - I can't get hold of a copy and it's in German which I can't read.
He and other authors are using Cuspiteuthis
in papers though and I'm very pleased to go along with it - it's the name I grew up with in older editions of the NHM Mesozoic Fossils handbook
Edited by TqB 2015-01-26 17:53:31