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

Re: Albertosaurus



At 6:56 PM 8/12/95, Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:
>Yes, this is a valid publication. The ICZN says nothing about refereed
>journals, etc. The difference between publication in a refereed journal
>versus an ordinary periodical is simply that professional paleontologists
>accept a refereed nomenclatural act at once, but tend to sit on the fence
>with respect to nomenclatural acts published elsewhere.

        This must be what I heard.  Thanks for clarifying!

> This is "journal
>mystique." Plenty of invalid, synonymous, or doubtful zoological names have
>been published in refereed journals over the years, fewer names of any kind,
>valid or invalid, published elsewhere these days. Too bad. I've never
>proposed a taxon whose existence I couldn't defend.

        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-)



Jerry D. Harris
Schuler Museum of Paleontology
Southern Methodist University
Box 750395
Dallas  TX  75275-0395
jdharris@lust.isem.smu.edu
        (Compuserve:  73132,3372)

---------/O\------*     --->|:|:|>     w___/^^^\--o

TITLE OF A REAL SCIENTIFIC PAPER:

"South American Animals and Their Lice"

---------/O\------*     --->|:|:|>     w___/^^^\--o