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

RE: Torvosaurus (or Megalosaurus) in Europe?




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On Behalf Of
Mickey Mortimer
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 11:07 PM
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: Torvosaurus (or Megalosaurus) in Europe?

Tracy Ford wrote-

>> 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
> else.

Everyone one else does use nomina nuda.  Since when are they off limits?
Glut's encyclopedias have a whole section devoted to them.  Hell, even
popular books like The New Illustrated Dinosaur Dictionary and The Dinosaur
Data Book  (ah, memories) include nomina nuda.  If you have a problem with
their use, take it up with those publishing them, or including them in
actual dinosaur websites.<<
There is nothing wrong with listing a nomen nudum as a nomen nudum. This is
not the problem I'm talking about.



> 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.

>>Anyone else find Tracy's tone the least bit inappropriate?<<
What, you think I'm being a slight bit testy? Hmm, me? I'm testy because I
feel I'm banging my head against the wall by telling you what is appropriate
and what is not and you keep doing, keep arguing, that what your doing isn't
wrong. We are banging our heads against the wall with you. I personally
wouldn't tell you anything I was working on because you keep doing this
(Sorry Jaime, it's the way I feel right now).

>>In any case, I find your reasoning here lacking.  If the authors
specifically state that the material they describe was to be called
"Brontoraptor" (actually, they didn't even use quotes) in their publically
accessable paper, I would assume that spreading that information is
perfectly fine.  The authors intended for that fact to be known as much as
they intended for the morphology to be known, else they would not have
included it.  Describing that material (or other material) as "Brontoraptor"
in a way that counts as publication would indeed be unethical.  But (and I
want to make this perfectly clear) __ I'm not doing that __.  Nor were
George Olshevsky, Darren Naish, Pete Buchholz, or any of the other people
who have used the name on the DML since 1995.  Don't start insulting and
ordering me not to perform actions that have been going on for years in both
published and unpublished media.<<
The difference in what you do and what George does is large. George will
list the name and sometimes the abstract, but that's it, no diagnosis. What
you do is list the name, the number, the material, and a DIAGNOSIS. This is
what I and others have a problem with, the diagnosis. I have "Brontoraptor"
listed in my list, and just the locality no specimen number (which isn't the
case for all of them and is one of the reasons I asked the other questions
on the other list so that I too can know what is best to do). Did the
original paper with 'Brontoraptor' list the specimen numbers? (If they had I
would have put them in my list, I'm anal that way). Or did you find the
numbers though other recourses? If you wan to use a nomen nudum, fine, just
don't list a diagnosis of it. How much clearer do I have to be?

This is the problem that I and others have and I'm not the only one to point
this out to you; also Jaime, George, Dan C., Tom L., etc.

> 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.

Indeed.  The key word being "IF".  Why you're so insistant on badgering me
instead of the hundreds of other people out there using nomina nuda on
websites or in books and articles I can only guess.  Take your anger out on
Redman, he originally published the name.  When I do publish something, I'll
be sure not to officially describe any nomina nuda.  I know how the rules
work, and I'll be careful not to one up anyone's description.<<
There is nothing wrong with using nomen nudum names; it's the DIAGONSIS, the
list of material that IS THE PROBLEM, Understand?


Mickey Mortimer