[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Albertosaurus

In a message dated 95-08-13 15:05:17 EDT, jdharris@lust.isem.smu.edu (Jerry
D. Harris) writes:

>        Well yes, plenty of now-invalid names were proposed in the refereed
>journals, but only because the authors and the reviewers thought that (a)
>the genus or species proposed _at_the_time_ was valid, and (b) the paper
>was convincing enough in that respect.  Only later would the thing be
>deemed invalid.  I don't find it possible for refereed journals to publish
>papers only on valid genera and species -- they'd have to have a crystal
>ball to see if the name would remain valid down the line!  8-)

I'm talking mainly about valid nomenclatural ACTS here, not about the
validity or invalidity of the taxa themselves, to determine which we would
indeed need crystal balls. When Greg Paul proposed all those theropod taxa in
_Predatory Dinosaurs_, there was a lot of hemming and hawing about whether
they were validly PROPOSED, let alone whether they had any systematic
validity. Of course they were validly proposed! But because they first
appeared in a popular-level science book rather than a technical journal,
some paleontologists at first refused to accept them. Now, a few years later,
I think pretty much everybody has come around and realized that Greg's names
exist, that some (such as Avetheropoda) even have nomenclatural priority and
are not just junior synonyms of other names.