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

RE: VIRUS & ARCHAEORAPTOR




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On Behalf Of
Jaime A. Headden
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 2:37 PM
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Cc: dino.hunter@cox.net
Subject: Re: VIRUS & ARCHAEORAPTOR

Tracy L. Ford (dino.hunter@cox.net) wrote:

<The front half (which seems to be lost in the mess) is from a New Genus
of Bird and that is the important part of the specimen, while it is the
back half that has caught the attention of everyone. Lest not forget that
Storrs Olsen has deemed the back half as being Archaeoraptor, which is the
same as Microraptor and has, for now, priority over the specimens.>

  This must be regarded carefully, in my opinion, as we must consider the
amplitude of Storrs Olson's note regarded what he decided to designate
"Archaeoraptor" (reasons are unimportant in this case). At which point
does this note become a published document when it, as in dissertations,
is released pretty much only among in-house personnel and colleages? Such
a publication does not, unless it's been released to a distribution
center, to other libraries and does not permit broad access. It what other
ways does this "authoratative" note constitute publication?<<


True, but from what I understand, he also sent it out to 100 different
paleontologists, and I believe, and I may be wrong, he believes he has
fulfilled the ICZN ambulation on it. And if the ICZN recognizes it, then so
would we all. I don't know how to check this with the ICZN directly.


Tracy L. Ford
P. O. Box 1171
Poway Ca  92074