[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Torvosaurus (or Megalosaurus) in Europe?
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 9:25 PM
Subject: 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 Contrary to Mickey Mortimer's zeal for the public use of unpublished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 the younger members of this list that it's okay to reveal unpublished
First, I support the use of undescribed names, not unpublished ones.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.<<
Of course you don't! You'll do what ever you want to do, screw everyone
> 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 intended to publish this suggests that continued use of an unpublished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 bandied about unpublished and taken to be available despite the authors'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!<<
The authors can publish a name in parentheses, but YOU can't go and put two
and two together before the author can! What is your problem? How many times
do people have to tell you NOT TO DO SOMETHING! When will it get into your
THICK HEAD! Don't write things on the list, they get archived. What this
tells me is that you can't be trusted with information and you'll do what
ever you want. What this will do is piss off people and you won't be well
like in paleo, but apparently this is ok with you. NOW STOP DOING IT! You
know I bet a pissed off Bakker would be interesting. I can ask him his
opinion if you want the next time I see him.
Let me put it another way. If you publish something on an animal that hasn't
been described by the author that would amount to a description of the
animal this would be very unethical. What the SVP could do then is
investigate you and take appropriate action with their ethics committee
(which does exist I've talked to the one who started it). But if this is all
right to you, by all means continue with what your doing. In fact this will
be the last time I bring it up to you, if you continue then you have been
warned about your actions.
> 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
Richardoestesia is used everywhere in Currie et al. except in figure 8.7 C
(pg. 121), where Ricardoestesia is used.<<
Have you talked to the authors of the paper to find out which way they want
the name to appear? I have!
Tracy L. Ford
P. O. Box 1171
Poway Ca 92074