Caretta caretta ( Linnaeus 1758:197 )

Iverson, John B., 2022, A review of Chelonian type specimens (order Testudines), Megataxa 7 (1), pp. 1-85 : 15-16

Caretta caretta ( Linnaeus 1758:197)

Holotype: None designated, and no original material remains ( Wallin 1985). Linnaeus’ (1758:197) Testudo caretta was apparently based solely on reports in the literature and was a composite of Caretta caretta and Eretmochelys imbricata ( Wallin 1985:121; Brongersma 1961). See also Comment under Chelonia mydas .

Testudo marina Garrault 1764 :Pl. 675

Holotype: Not located; illustrated in the original description (Pl. 675).

Testudo cephalo Schneider 1783:303

Holotype: Not designated ( Cogger et al. 1983:67; Dodd 1990:1).

Testudo caouana Lacepède 1788:95

Holotype: Not located, possibly MNHN.

Testudo nasicornis Lacepède 1788:103

Holotype: Not designated ( Cogger et al. 1983:67; Dodd 1990:1); see discussion in TTWG (2009, comment 9.7).

Testudo caouana Bonnaterre 1789:20

Holotype: Not located, possibly MNHN.

Testudo gigas Walbaum in Donndorff 1798:35

Holotype: Not located.

Caretta nasuta Rafinesque 1814:66

Holotype: Not designated ( Dodd 1990:1). Nomen novum according to Cogger (1983:67), not an original description.

Caretta atra Merrem 1820:17

Holotype: Not designated ( Dodd 1990:1); see discussion in TTWG (2009, comment 9.7).

Chelonia radiata Cuvier 1829:14

Holotype: Not located; MNHN according to Smith & Smith (1980:285); illustrated in Schoepff (1793: Pl. XVIb) according to Cuvier (1829) and Cogger et al. (1983:72).

Chelonia pelasgorum Valenciennes in Bory de Saint-Vincent 1833: Pl. 6

Holotype: Not designated ( Dodd 1990:1); however, MNHN 7907 is figured in Pl. 6 of the original description.

Caouana elongata Gray 1844:53

Holotype: BMNH 1947.3 .5.41 ( Cogger et al. 1983:63).

Thalassochelys corticata Girard 1858:431

Holotype: USNM 7778 ( Cochran 1961:235; Reynolds et al. 2007:10).

Caretta gigas Deraniyagala 1933:66

Syntypes (uncertain): Not originally designated, but BMNH 1946.1.22.64 and 1947.3.5.76 according to Smith & Smith (1980:307) and Cogger et al. (1983:68), both being parts of the same specimen, and formerly 1934.5.1.1 according to Das (2009:5 who believed that the illustration in the original description (Pl. V) should be considered a syntype).