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

Re: Torvosaurus (or Megalosaurus) in Europe?

Mickey Mortimer (Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com) wrote:

<Good.  I'm glad we agree.>

  I'm not sure this is the same thing. A nomen nudum by itself is just a
name; provide any constructive use of a name that means nothing, and sure
we can talk. When attached to something else, like a specimen, it's a
label. When Mickey applies nomina nuda or even nupublished names to
specimens, he creates a different entity than that which was applied
previously. Apparently the issue regarding Siegwarth et al's name is
different, but until such a time that this name is published, it is not
available for discussion.

<1. "Capitalsaurus">

  Show me a published indication that any author has applied the name to
the material presently housed in the USNM as *Creosaurus potens*, and then
we'll talk ... otherwise it's a useless nomen nudum.

<2. "Anabisetia">

  This was the author's fault. If they wanted the name out, fine. But
technically the name is still not available for science.

<3. "Alashansaurus">

  I need to repeat Chure's admonishment? Please do not use this name.


  It's not a matter of writing diagnoses and such for taxa, it's a matter
of associated _names_ to these, especially those of other people, even
when they have expressed doubt to its use, validity, etc..

<I, on the other hand, feel that a name without a description can be
discussed as long as it is not used in such a way that would make the
discusser the author.  Nomina nuda are convenient titles for specimens
until they are properly described.>

  A name without a description is meaningless. It cannot be applied to
anything without a write-up on this, and then the name can only be applied
when _published_ (and my application of the rules of the ICZN).

<Our differing viewpoints on this issue are just that- viewpoints.  Yours
may be more ethical to some, but mine is obviously accepted by many in the
paleontological community as well.>

  And you care not for the less ethical methods of your practice? And your
continuing use of words that the authors have asked not be used? That the
name of the authors is applied by the authors is _their_ right, not ours
to become even more zealous in application by finding reasons to use it.

<I agree, and was careful not to call "Brontoraptor" published, nor
advocate it's use as an official name.>

  Saying the name was not published doesn't matter ... saying the name at
all is the problem. Why not simply use the specimen numbers? Does a
binomen or "genus" have to be applied to any specimen that need be used?
No ... that would be ridiculous and immaterial to discussion of the
specimen, which is what this whole thing caled systematics is about. One
diagnoses and codes from specimen AMNH 6517, not *Oviraptor
philoceratops*. There will always be only one specimen that can be called
AMNH (Housed in the American Museum of Natural History, Vertebrate
Paleontology collection) specimen # 6517 (collected by Andrews and
Granger). Same goes for NGMC 91. As stated before on this list (by Norell,
and others) the specimen is it's own entity, and there may be many
specimens with the nomen "Dave" attached to them. It is no harder to say
NGMC 91 than to say "Dave" except for some who feel a more _familiar_
reference is easier. That's just laziness, a lax attitude about the
reference of material in any form of analysis.

<Indeed.  He says Megalosaurus is a metataxon (grrrr...) and is
distinguishable from comparable taxa (eg. Magnosaurus, Eustreptospondylus,
"Walkersaurus", Proceratosaurus).  As Poekilopleuron lacks a dentary, he
could not compare it to Megalosaurus.>

  Ah my problem. New French material may provide a diagnostic comparison

<Is this an actual rule, or just your personal code of ethics?>

  Yes, it is an actual rule. ICZN's, to be exact. And yes, it is my
ethical consideration, as with many other well-learned and renowned
systematists and anatomists (Holtz, Smith [that's Josh], Brochu, Lamanna,
and Norell, to name a few).

Jaime A. Headden

  Little steps are often the hardest to take.  We are too used to making leaps 
in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do.  We should all 
learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.

Do You Yahoo!?
Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!