[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Torvosaurus (or Megalosaurus) in Europe?
O God! Here we go again!
I publically seek forgiveness from the list and especially from Tracy for ever
providing the pictures with which this description was made. I have written to
Mickey _off list_ on the more serious aspects of this matter. Originally, I had
supported his writing _something_ up in his "Details on..." serials- my mistake.
Rest assured had I fully realized what was to happen, I would have thought
differently, as a _description_, sensu lato, was not the grounds for nor the
resason why the picts were provided. While I still do find Mickey's missives
informative they are increasingly taking on their own personality. And in the
case of the "C-word" someone can conclude a formal description was being
posited. The Arundel dinos do not need more bogus names being erected for
already dubious taxa! Let discovery of new material take care of that. And
finally, the pictures provided, in my view, were not of sufficient detail with
which to derive enough information to use in a description. Of any kind!
> Tracy Ford wrote-
> > There is nothing wrong with listing a nomen nudum as a nomen nudum. This
> > not the problem I'm talking about.
> Good. I'm glad we agree.
That's the point though. It is one thing to _discuss_ some aspect of a
specimen, let's take for example USNM 3049, or to convey historical background
or to go into the systematic taxonomy of a specimen in question as part of a
larger thesis. It's something totally different when yet another useless junk
nomen is bandied about and for no clear reason. That is, unless you are
re-describing it! Call it what you will, and I reread the archive link
regarding this, it appears that is exactly what you are doing despite your
assertions to the contrary. Moreover, rehashing that thread and providing the
URL for that missive can only serve to reinforce the notion that a description
is "out there".
> > 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.
> > you do is list the name, the number, the material, and a DIAGNOSIS. This
> > what I and others have a problem with, the diagnosis.
We cannot emphasize this enough! As I stated previously, your missives have
taken on a life of their own. It is offten impossible to distinguish between
what you are abstracting from the paper in question, paraphrasing, _quoting_
from the author(s) or injecting _your own_ opinions_. Therein lies the danger.
I never wrote a diagnosis or listed
> specimen numbers of "Brontoraptor", but there are three other cases I can
> think of that relate to this-
> 1. "C<snip>urus"
> What a mess that was. :-( Here, I can see your point. That was a really
> tricky issue though, as the species had been described, just not the genus.
> I'm still not quite sure about the proper way to refer to the material, as
> it is a holotype of the species potens,
But do you really?
If you must refer to it at all then how about
... USNM 3049 (formerly GC 3049) Lull, 1911, pl XIV, fig. 4 , "Creosaurus
potens" = Theropoda indet. (Weishampel, 1990. Dinosaur Distribution _in_
Weishampel etc....The Dinosauria, p.63-139...
or something along that line? Why insist on yet another useless name?
Kranz still wants me to
> publish the name
so I doubt anything negative can come of
> my posts (worst case scenario- my name gets connected to the horrible name
> "Capitalsaurus" ;-) ).
We have only been trying to Point OUT the negative aspects for some months
And it's bad science!
Still, I admit what I did was not entirely right and
> after the ensuing thread, will be sure not to write such a post again.
Good! Then drive a wooden steak in it right now, cut off the head and burn the
corpse- right now_ because_ it seems to keep rising from the dead! ;-)