[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Validity of *Tyrannosaurus stanwinstonorum* Pickering (1996)
[Dr.] Tom Holtz (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
<The U.S. Code has no bearing on what constitutes *taxonomic* publication;
only a biological nomenclatorial body (such as the ICZN or the future
ICPN) has authority in such cases.>
The reason I brought up the U.S. Code is because the ICZN does not
specify the nature of publication, just accepted publications and
unaccepted publications. It does not exclude the actual material Pickering
used. Whereas one can consider also the means by which these were
transmitted as being similar to newsletters, the ICZN does not
specifically exclude them. However, this is not really the main issue I
chose to bring up in my first post.
<Furthermore, there is a sort of community rules standard: if the
of scientists ignores an (in this case invalidly and inadvisedly proposed)
name, then it isn't used.>
However, though Pickering's work does not constitute a professionally
accepted work and therefore its nomenclature is typically ignored, the
issue of Glut's accepted nomenclatural publication, with type, diagnosis,
and figure supplied, does apparently conform to the ICZN's standards, even
though the names were coined by another person. This is one reason why the
_vide_ appelation is used, to my knowledge. What I would like to know is
does Glut's publication count as a valid taxonomic work, and his use of
the nomenclature available or not?
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.
"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!