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

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

>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).

Therefore we regard the name given to the original specimen as a nomen dubium".
Ah, so I misunderstood the whole affair and you "just" made it a nomen dubium instead of trying to destroy it.
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. :-)
Having not yet read Phylocode, although I do have it, I cannot see where  "registering a name" would have prevented the foregoing discussion.
Had Syntarsus Fairmaire been registered, Raath could have found out that the name already existed by means of a few clicks. (Ignoring the fact that in 1969 this was not an option, but after "January 1, 200n" it will be.)
Unlesss I misunderstand you it seems to imply that had Kranz "registered" his nomen dubium that somehow it would be valid?
This is too hypothetical to answer... it's still not clear what will replace the Linnaean binomial (something must, as the genus is a rank like all others), therefore the current draft of the PhyloCode doesn't contain any rules about species.
        But my original point was: Kranz just released the name to the public, without publishing a diagnosis etc. AFAIK. So he probably wouldn't have registered it, and thus nobody runs any risk of accidentally turning it into a valid name (dubious or not) and accidentally robbing him of authorship. Cases like Ultrasaurus Kim also can't happen again.