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

Re: WHY SCROTUM IS NOT VALID



In a message dated 98-07-23 19:11:11 EDT, darren.naish@port.ac.uk writes:

<< He thought that it may have been the petrified scrotum 
 of a large human, and on his plate figuring this bone, it is labelled 
 'Scrotum humanum'. He was not proposing Scrotum humanum as a 
 taxonomic name for the bone, plus he was writing pre-Linnaeus (1758) 
 in any case (names proposed pre-Linnaeus are irrelevant to 
 post-Linnaen taxonomy) .  >>

I'm pretty sure Halstead (all by himself, if I recall correctly--a paper in
some "journal of facetious science"--don't remember the title, drat) credited
the name _Scrotum humanum_ to Brookes 1763 (post-Linnaeus), which is why he
"pretended" that the name was a validly proposed binomen. Thus _Scrotum
humanum_ is invalid not because it is pre-Linnaean but because it is a _nomen
oblitum_--a forgotten name not used scientifically for 50 years after its
proposal. Not to mention that the type specimen is the distal end of a large
theropod femur not diagnosable to the species level, and is also lost,
surviving only as a published figure. Please check, as I'm going by memory
here; my files are still boxed up.