[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Thesis ethics?
Tracy Ford wrote-
> Is this kosher to put this on the list before you've published it
>> C. maortuensis is now known as "Alashansaurus" maortuensis. It is known
>> from a maxilla, quadrates, posterior section of skull, axis and six
>> vertebae. Both Rauhut (2000) and Chure (2001) classify it as a
>> coelurosaur. >etc.<
To which Dan Chure replied-
> The dissertation is publicly available and can be cited, so I see no harm
> in discussing its contents. Saying it is known as "Alshansaurus" is, of
> course, incorrect, as a dissertation does not meet the standards for the
> ICZN code. I would have preferred to have it simply referred to as a new
> genus rather than mention the name itself, but maybe this guy doesn't know
> any better.
Gee, thanks for choosing my post. :-| Perhaps the _original_ post to the
list actually on the topic of detailing Chure's thesis and publicizing the
name "Alashansaurus" (as well as two other new species) would have been a
more appropriate choice.
It was because of that post that I assumed the name was fair game for the
DML, as I had avoided using it until then. Not that I'm shifting the blame
to George at all, as I don't see a problem in posting information publically
available. I just think it was rude to choose the comparatively off-topic
post by me (a virtually unknown novice in the paleontological community,
trying to make good impressions) as an example to send to Chure and post
Sorry for the rant, it was just quite annoying.
In regards to what Dan actually said, why would it be wrong to call the
taxon "Alashansaurus" maortuensis? The quotation marks indicate the name is
not official, so it's not misleading people into thinking it's accepted by
the ICZN. And if the information is available publically, why put a block
on using the name publically?