Abstract

Two research teams have different opinions regarding the number of paradoxidine species close to the base of the Miaolingian in Morocco and Spain. Geyer & Vincent (2015) recognized five species based on a mosaic of overlapping characters that include some relative length and width ratios, qualitative descriptions of cranidial and pygidial outlines, and relief observations. In contrast, Álvaro et al. (2018) conducted a morphometric analysis of all these specimens from the Cambropallas telesto acme level of the Assemame quarry and concluded that the Moroccan material had been taxonomically over-split and was represented by only two species, Acadoparadoxides mureroensis and A. nobilis. Subsequently, Geyer et al. (2019) commented that we had not analysed some diagnostic characters, and applied the stratigraphic setting of their morphospecies as a diagnostic character for taxonomic identification. After sampling the Cambropallas telesto acme level in the Taroucht quarry, where the other team purchased its collection, and re-analysing the diagnostic characters claimed by Geyer et al. (2019), our conclusions are maintained: (i) morphometric values of several paratype specimens fall outside the purported ranges of diagnostic characters; (ii) all 2D morphometric analyses incorporating the diagnostic characters of the morphospecies are unable to detect interspecific differences, except for A. nobilis; and (iii) the slight concavity displayed by some pygidia, strongly controlled by preservation, is in need of 3D biometrical analysis. Hence, our proposed synonymy should be maintained until 3D statistical analyses are available on material preserved in carbonate or concretions.

You do not currently have access to this article.