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

Re: Dinosaur Genera List update #186

> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:33:57 EDT
> From: Dinogeorge@aol.com
> This email (slightly edited) arrived from Jaime Headden April 2 (so
> it's not an April Fool joke):
>> In 1998, prior to the formal announcement and during the high-press
>> frenzy of the coverage of the discovery of this animal and
>> preparation (between 1997-1999), various papers published so-called
>> names applied to the specimen in question, MIWG 1997.550, including
>> the following:
>> Kelly, J., 1998. "Is this man our Indiana Jones?" The Daily Mail
>> (newspaper), dated 10-7-1998.
>> Published were both Gavinosaurus and Lengosaurus, in response to
>> the discoverer, Gavin Leng (honored with the specific epithet of
>> E. lengi). What nasty outcomings for short-sightedness. These are
>> effectively nomina nuda and subjective junior synonyms of
>> Eotyrannus and completely, utterly useless to science.
> Jaime's email, complete with citation, made it necessary to add the names
> Gavinosaurus Kelly, 1998 [nomen nudum -> Eotyrannus]
> Lengosaurus Kelly, 1998 [nomen nudum -> Eotyrannus]

Excuse my ignorance, but really, _why_ is it necessary to add these
names?  What purpose is served?  In what way is the world a better
place for their addition?  Wouldn't it be better just to leave them to
moulder in the solitary obscure article in a downmarket UK tabloid in
which their inadvertently appeared?  This seems to me like a case of
``Least said, soonest mended.''

 _/|_    _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor   <mike@miketaylor.org.uk>   www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "In the tea, my lord, the chrysanthemum tea!  An informal
         variation on the normal recipe!" -- Steven Sondheim,
         "Pacific Overtures"