Prepare for a long reading
So, in collaboration with multiple other individuals online, I have spent far too much time digging around about the taxon "Hikanodon" (supposedly named by Keferstein, 1834) on a whim. I think there was a discussion about the taxon a while ago on the DML by Olshevsky, but there wasn't much light shed on the actual origins of the name. If there are any obvious errors with what I've found, or other possibilities, please bring them up:
To start off, Keferstein or usually credited with the creation of the name Hikanodon. In the 1834 book Die Naturgeschichte des ErdkÃrpers in ihren erstenÂGrundzÃgen, C(?)h. Keferstein, page 259, described Hikanodon as, roughly, a large herbivorous reptile, and then states in a new sentence "von Mantell." At this point, its really unclear whether he is crediting the name to Mantell or not, but Keferstein goes on to cite Cuvier's "Recherches sur lesÂossemensÂfossiles volume 2" (1824)Âpages 161, 232 and 350, and note that the genus is from the "iron-sandÂin England", probablyÂreferringÂto the ferruginous sand described in English papers of the time.
Following this lead of Cuvier's work, pages 161, 232 and 350 all have in common: a mention of Gideon Mantell, his crocodile, and the ferruginous sand. Page 161 described the crocodile; page 232 described a turtle but references page 161 and the crocodile; and page 350 describes an intermediate reptile referencing pages 161 and 232 and mentioningÂthe other taxa found by Mantell. At this point, there are only two leads to follow, a reference to Mantell's "Fossils of the South Downs", and the figures of Mantell's material, the teeth of which are later named Iguanodon. At this point, it appears that Hikanodon is either Mantell's crocodile or the material that was named Iguanodon.
"Fossils of the South Downs" has a major section dedicated to describing the "crocodile" he discovered, where Mantell references an earlier edition of Cuvier's major paper, and described plenty of fragmentary material. The tale turns sour for HikanodonÂas the material Mantell describes as a crocodile is,Âin reality, the earliest body fossils of Iguanodon, making HikanodonÂan objective synonym of Iguanodon. So at this point, it seems all other authors are correct, and Hikanodon, named by Keferstein in 1834, is an objective synonym of Iguanodon. Things get more interesting.
Being stubborn, I kept digging, and I encountered three additional references to Hikanodon, all precedingÂKeferstein 1834. In his 1833 "Handbuch der Geognosie", K.A. KÃhn references the genus, on page 228, as a fossil reptile no longer found in the mountains. I'm not sure what this means, but HikanodonÂis specifically distinguished from gavials, iguanas, crocodiles, salamanders and "Leptorhynchus". And being an earlier publication that Keferstein, brings into question the latter's authority over the name (Keferstein never stated it to be a new name).
The 1930 "Handbuch der naturlehre" by G.W. Munke also mentions Hikanodon, in greater detail than KÃhn. Munke described Hikanodon as similar to both Megalosaurus and the fish-like reptiles (plesiosaurs) and says the genus was "aufgefundene" by Mantell. This apparently translates as "discovered", making it ambiguous whether Hikanodon is considered by Munke to have been found by, named by, or both found and named by Mantell. Munke happens to cite Cuvier's work directly at the end of this paragraph, after the mention of Hikanodon.
The final paper is probably the most important, and yet has never been mentioned in this context. Cuvier's Ansichten von der Urwelt, by Jakob NÃggerath, and published in 1826, dedicates the most of any paper to the description of Hikanodon. In two paragraphs, NÃggerath points out that there is a reptile in the "iron-sand" of England, which also contains crocodiles, turtles, and Megalosaurus, with herbivore teeth, and follows that up by mentioning Mantell as the discoverer of this herbivore and other reptiles from the deposit. NÃggerath then says the most important sentence of everything we have found, "He called it Hikanodon". Cuvier's work, like the papers above, is once again cited, but at the end of the previous sentence, not following up the mention of Hikanodon.
At this point, all objectivity from this is gone, and it is up to interpretation. From what has been said at this point, all authorship of Hikanodon by Keferstein is incorrect. The origin of the name comes from NÃggerath (1826), where it is clearly stated that Hikanodon is "named by Mantell", making it almost certainly a lapsus calami for Iguanodon Mantell (1825). As a lot of time was put into this rather pointless but fun adventure, any comments, criticisms or corrections would be greatly appreciated.