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

Re: The pterosaur in the egg: a new report

    Looking at the article as it appears on Dave Peters' website, I've got a
horrible feeling that his name is, in fact, valid, and not a nomen nudum.
While the article doesn't include an adequate description itself, it does
include an explicit, unambiguous reference to a specimen that was described
elsewhere (I've just re-glanced at the original 'Nature' paper - the
description is sparse, and it's hidden amongst the text, but it is there).
    As for the validity of the publication forum, I think that this isn't a
factor - the magazine *is* widely available, certainly more so than many a
monograph, though whether it would stay so over many years I'm not so sure
of (I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the magazine in question). The only
factor that might affect things is if the magazine carries a disclaimer
saying that it is not valid for nomenclatorial purposes - otherwise we have
to accept it.
    This name has so much wrong with it, it makes one cringe. The
impropriety of naming a specimen not seen, and probably being studied by
others as we speak; the inappropriateness of the publication forum; even the
coining of the name is hidden in a figure caption rather than being clearly
separated in the text. But I'm afraid that all these factors, while they may
violate a number of the recommendations of the ICZN, and certainly its
intention, probably *don't* violate any actual rules. So welcome, Avgodectes
pseudembryon Peters 2004, welcome to the fold. Please just sit yourself down
in the corner, and we'd appreciate if you didn't cause any trouble.


        Christopher Taylor

On 26/8/04 10:12 am, "Mike Hanson" <mhanson54@comcast.net> wrote:

> Just for the record, I agree fully with all Dave Marjanovic said.
> Phil Bigelow wrote:
>> Nomen nudum:  A taxonomic name held to be invalid, because the taxonomic
>> group designated is not described or illustrated sufficiently for
>> recognition.  The name has not yet been published with a proper
>> scientific description.
>> Further, to be considered valid, the name must be published in a form
>> that is widely and easily available to the masses.  I don't know if
>> _Prehistoric Times_ fulfills that criterium.
> I think it all depends on wether Dave Peters _intended_ this article to
> be a description./
> Prehistoric Times/ is available to the masses (definately moreso than
> most scientific journals) and apparently some have found it being sold
> in magazine stands, so that is out of the question.
> -------------------------------------
> Mike Hanson
> Email: mhanson54@comcast.net
> Website: http://www.archosauria.org
> The Pterosauria: http://www.archosauria.org/pterosauria/
> Dinosauricon Art Gallery: http://dino.lm.com/artists/display.php?name=mike
> DeviantArt Gallery: http://archosaurian.deviantart.com/