[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Not to be disrespectful to Dr. Sereno or his methodology (he does do
dinosaurs darn good, as far as I'm concerned), but a question arose.
If the issues raised by Tom Holtz, Mike Keesey and others are valid
(name priority, publication date priority, etc.), and they certainly
appear valid issues to me, then why weren't they addressed (and
corrected) in the review process?
I realize that clade nomenclature rules are not as "mature" as are the
ICZN rules for binomials, but geez, the issues raised on the dinosaur
list should have been dealt with *before* publication.
Or, I could be wrong. Are the nomenclature rules in cladistics still so
lax that there is nothing that can be done to stop this? (by "stop
this", I mean via the review process).