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

Re: Archaeoraptor and Storrs Olson



Ok, shortly:

Status of Archaeoraptor [and various possibilities to attribute it to
authors]

Archaeoraptor liaoningensis Czerkas, in Sloan 1999 ["Stephen draws me into
a back room to view the animal he will later name Archaeoraptor
liaoningensis"; no differential description, data etc. => nomen nudum]

Archaeoraptor liaoningensis Czerkas / Sloan 1999, vide/teste Olson 2000
[or something like that: still unavailable with date 1999: Art. 11.5.2.: a
citation does not change status of availability]

Archaeoraptor liaoningensis Czerkas / Sloan, in Olson 2000 [impossible:
Czerkas (/ Sloan) is responsible for the name, but not responsible for the
description; Art. 50.1.1.]

and so remains:
Archaeoraptor liaoningensis Olson, 2000 [fails to be proposed explicitly
as new taxon, Art. 16; the designation of a lectotype for an unavailable
name is invalid.]

Therefore Archaeoraptor liaoningensis is unavailable. Any attempt to
suppress A. liaoningensis is unnecessary.

Kind regards

Markus Moser

------------------------
Dr. Markus Moser
Staatliches Museum fuer Naturkunde Stuttgart
Museum am Loewentor (= Rosenstein 1)
D-70191 Stuttgart
Germany
?
moser.smns@naturkundemuseum-bw.de


>     I realise I'm probably opening a can of worms here, but I'm trying to
> work this out...
>     In 2000, Storrs Olson published a paper (of sorts) which tied the name
> _Archaeoraptor liaoningensis_ to the rear part of the composite, and thus
> _Archaeoraptor_ supposedly takes priority over _Microraptor_.
>     An exchange about this was made on the DML, starting from
> http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/2002Jun/msg00132.html, as to whether Olson's
> publication was valid. This exchange seems to have fizzled, without a
> definite conclusion.
>     What is the actual citation for Olson's article?
>     Has there been any progress on this front? A number of internet pages
> mention the possibility of an ICZN application, but has one actually been
> made? Or was it decided to be unnecessary after all?
>     If Olson's publication is indeed valid, there would seem to be little
> inherent basis for an application (in the sense that the rules are fairly
> straightforward, and there's little chance of confusing the nature of
> specimens), but I know the ICZN has acted at least once before to preserve
> a
> name which was well-known in the general public, when _Homo africanus_ was
> suppresed to preserve _Australopithecus afarensis_.
>
>     Cheers,
>
>         Christopher Taylor
>
>