[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Fwd: Re: R: Allosaurus topotype
I accidentally sent this to Stephan alone.
> Stephan Pickering (StephanPickering@cs.com) wrote:
> <As far as the species name: according to the ICZN, my "whitei", while
> valid, should be corrected to "whiteorum", which I shall do when I
> my monograph. I looked carefully through the index of the Code, and
> not find your name listed as the arbitrator of my personal choice as the
> author of the species.>
> In the current Code, it is impossible to "revise" a name through bad
> grammar, misspelling, etc. This is why the name *Sinovenator changii*,
> which honors a woman, cannot be emended to *S. chang_ae_*, as it should,
> or *Sinornithosaurus millenii* cannot be fixed to the grammatically
> *S. millen_n_ii*. I'm sorry, but the Code is clear.
> A discussion group elsewhere (in fact on sea slugs) had this to say:
> " "Under the 3rd Edition (1985), wrongly constructed gender endings
> (suffixes) were considered to be an 'incorrect original spelling' and
> to be corrected [Art 32 c, d]. Which would mean that under those Rules,
> would have been mandatory to change such an incorrect spelling.
> However in the 4th edition (1999), the same rules concerning gender
> endings apply, [Art. 31.1.2] but it is not clear what we are supposed to
> do if authors ignore the Rules, or make an error in applying them. In
> Article 32.2 it states that 'The original spelling of a name is the
> "correct original spelling", unless it is demonstrably incorrect as
> provided in Article 32.5'. Art. 32.5 covers inadvertent errors such as a
> typographical mistakes or mispelling of a name, but specifically states
> that "Incorrect transliteration or latinization .... are not to be
> considered inadvertent errors" "
> *A. whitei* is, by your own admission, an inadverdent latinization.
> And the same was discussed here on the list, any search of the
> will provide similar discussion.
> <As much as you may personally dislike the idea of independent
> scholarship, it thrives, as witness George Olshevsky's on-going,
> invaluable contributions to archosaur taxonomy.>
> His are actually largely only dinosaurian. However, I have every
> intention of getting the various Olshevsky and Ford publications, as far
> as I know they meet the standards the ICZN still holds and has held when
> first released to account for the various clauses and surpassing
> contra-clauses to abide by the dictates of publication. So far, however
> hurts, I still fail to see Pickering's work as valid in this case. I can
> be wrong, but all I hear is "you're wrong" instead of being shown _how_.
> Sorta "I say it is, so it must be" in this situation. This also has
> nothing to do with my personal dislike of you, which is nonexistant and
> mentality is not up for discussion, and I would urge anyone to keep it
> private if they _do_ wish to talk about it.
> 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!?
> Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
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!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site