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

Re: Archaeoraptor still a nomen nudum




I agree with George that it would be best to get Archaeoraptor on the Official list of rejected names. When I petitioned the ICZN in 1980 to put two whale generic names on the rejected list (and put Mesoplodon on the Official list of valid names), I infuriated my boss (E. Raymond Hall), an authority on mammals, who was resurrecting one of them and sinking the well-known name Mesoplodon into synonymy (a large genus among whales). I am happy to say the Commission unanimously agree to our petition, but Hall used the resurrected name anyway in "Mammals of North America" (in defiance of ICZN rules and procedures). Noone who knows any better uses that resurrected name, but it is a source of confusion for others.
If you don't get such names onto the official rejected list, you don't know when someone in the future will try to resurrect it. It might take a few years to get through the whole process, but once done, it would provide nomenclatural "closure", and as George said "finish off this argument once and for all."
------Ken Kinman
P.S. Letters to the Editor or other notices (in various pertinent journals) announcing this petition might be helpful. I don't know the ICZN present requirements for such notices, but it is a slow process, and other quicker notices might be warranted in this case to prevent any more confusion.
********************************************************
From: Dinogeorge@aol.com
Reply-To: Dinogeorge@aol.com
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
CC: Dinogeorge@aol.com
Subject: Re: Archaeoraptor still a nomen nudum
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 01:21:21 EST

In a message dated 1/5/01 0:53:03 AM EST, bh480@scn.org writes:

<< Taken together, these shortcomings in Olson's attempt to attach the name
Archaeoraptor to a dinosaur pretty well nullify his efforts and leave the
name a nomen nudum. Under a strict reading of the ICZN, Olson's misguided
 actions do not sink Microraptor nor deprive the paleontologists who
published the full scientific description of their authorship. >>

I agree 100% with Ben's reading of the Code regarding Archaeoraptor, and I
think that would ordinarily do it for anyone. But here we have a
paleontologist of considerable reputation, from the National Museum of
Natural History, who has been arguing exactly the opposite, namely, that
Archaeoraptor is a validly created name that he has even affixed to a type
specimen. I doubt whether Storrs Olson would accept Ben's "strict
interpretation" of the code, in view of what he has already contributed to
the situation. The purpose of adding Archaeoraptor to the index of rejected
names is to confirm that the name no longer has any scientific standing, and
to finish off this argument once and for all, so that there will be no
further possibility of raising this issue again in the future.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com