[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
> publish
> my monograph. I looked carefully through the index of the Code, and
> could
> 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
> proper
> *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
> were
> to be corrected [Art 32 c, d]. Which would mean that under those Rules,
> it
> 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
> archives
> 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
> it
> 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
> my
> mentality is not up for discussion, and I would urge anyone to keep it
> private if they _do_ wish to talk about it.
> 
>   Cheers,
> 
> =====
> 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
> http://webhosting.yahoo.com
> 


=====
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
http://webhosting.yahoo.com