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

Re: Details on Capitalsaurus: Multiple musings....



 
A similar situation arose when Howse and Milner (1993) described Ornithodesmus as a troodontid.  It was only known from a sacrum, so could only be distinguished from Saurornithoides junior among other troodontids.  They decided it was a "nomen vanum", so perhaps "Capitalsaurus" deserves this type of validity.
AFAIK a nomen vanum, an "empty name", is a name without a type specimen. Ornithodesmus has one, doesn't it?
> A prime case in point is the paper done in part by Brenda Chinnery, myself, Mike Brett- > Surman where we in fact sunk Kranz's "Magulodon muirkirkensis" and assigned the teeth in
> question to Neoceratopsia _indet._! As it should be.
 
I'm rather confused by the fact you never mentioned the name "Magulodon muirkirkensis" in that article.  Wouldn't it have been proper to keep the name, but just conclude that it is indeterminate?  [...] I don't think authors should be allowed to "sink" a name into "taxon indet.".  It's like me selecting Embasaurus and saying the name will no longer be used and it will be hereby known only as "Neotheropoda indet.".
AFAIK that's not allowed, it's impossible to destroy a name. The nearest thing that can be done is to place it in the Official List of Rejected Generic Names, but even then nobody can use the name again (create a junior homonym).
 
Heh heh. Let's wait for the PhyloCode. There registered names are valid and unregistered ones aren't, so it's impossible to accidentally create a valid name. Registration also practically destroys the possibility of homonymy -- cases like Syntarsus won't happen again after January 1, 200n. :-)