taxonID	type	description	language	source
03A85650BE41FFADC1E1CBF6FEDEF96A.taxon	description	It is recommended to read the extensive synonymy lists of both the genus and the subgenus that can be found in Mortensen (1948), Durham (1955; 1966) and Smith & Kroh (2011).	en	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): 41-43, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.01.04, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.01.04
03A85650BE41FFAFC1E1C8FFFDF2FCD7.taxon	description	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 15392 a, 15392 b, 15392 c, 15393 b, 15293 c and 15393 d. 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 73 D. 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. 23 a-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 15392 a, 15392 b and 15392 c). 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 15393 a, 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.	en	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): 41-43, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.01.04, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.01.04
