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

Re: Torvosaurus (or Megalosaurus) in Europe?

Jaime Headden wrote-

>   Contrary to Mickey Mortimer's zeal for the public use of unpublished
> names, even contrary to the advice of the very authors themselves (Chure's
> admonishment to use of his new, thesis name for *"Chilantaisaurus"
> maortuensis* being ignored), is rather disheartening as it indicates to
> the younger members of this list that it's okay to reveal unpublished
> named.

First, I support the use of undescribed names, not unpublished ones.  The
name is published.  See-
Redman, 1995. Paleo Horizons, Winter Issue.
Bakker, R. T., 1996. "The Real Jurassic Park: Dinosaurs and Habitats at Como
Bluff, Wyoming," in Morales, ed., 1996: 35-49.
So it's no worse than using "Dachongosaurus" or "Xuanhuasaurus", which I
don't see anyone complaining about.

> Otherwise, as is clear from
> the content of the document, the authors clearly express a lack of use of
> the name as a result of further study and the impartation of admonishment
> by a reviewer (during Submission of the manuscript) ... the name is not
> used anywhere in the document despite it's application in more public
> occasions by Robert Bakker.

Oh, but it is.  Did you miss the paragraph-
"The differences suggest that TATE 0012 must be a different species from T.
tanneri, at the minimum but it seems much more likely to be a different
genus. In fact, Tate 0012 was given the genus name Brontoraptor in earlier
versions of this paper. However, at the suggestion of Ken Carpenter, Denver
Museum of Natural History, we will wait to claim a new genus until we have
made better comparisons to the Torvosaurus tanneri material. Also, the
quarry is still being worked and we may find more material."

> That Bakker had
> intended to publish this suggests that continued use of an unpublished
> name is pre-emptory of his and his co-authors efforts, and is an
> infringement on his right to publish. The same goes for a variety of names
> bandied about unpublished and taken to be available despite the authors'
> warnings. I certainly wouldn't want any name I made ready for publication
> to be allowed to become public before I was ready.

Then don't publish your name before you describe it.  People aren't just
going to ignore data that's out in publically available resources.
Dissertations are one thing (as they're not technically published), but when
authors publish names in their papers without describing them, I think they
have a responsibility (though there are no doubt exceptions when papers
describing new taxa get held up, etc.).  Bakker continues to use
"Brontoraptor", and Siegwarth et al. obviously meant for people to know that
the material they described was to be called "Brontoraptor" at one time.
There is thus no problem in posting the information on a public forum- the
authors put it on a public website for crying out loud!

> Certainly, this may be why
> *Megalosaurus* has not appeared in further analyses. In the one analysis
> it has, it was more basal relative to birds than was *Torvosaurus*, and in
> Rauhut's thesis, this was also the case.

Interesting, especially considering Rauhut didn't include Megalosaurus.

>   And could someone who has it please photocopy me the page of their
> version of Currie, Rigby and Sloan's Dinosaur Systematics paper on Judith
> River teeth ... with *Ricardoestesia* ... that includes the use of
> *Ric[h]ardoestesia*?

Richardoestesia is used everywhere in Currie et al. except in figure 8.7 C
(pg. 121), where Ricardoestesia is used.

Mickey Mortimer