[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Valid in name only?
Christopher Taylor wrote:
The requirement for a name to refer to an organism refers only to the
author's intention, which is why I said I was asking specifically about the
validity of the name, not the organism. Names such as _Archaeozoon_,
_Mawsonites_ and _Halysium_ are still valid *as names*, even though the
"organisms" they refer to are actually inorganic. They remain so that the
name cannot be later applied to any other 'organism'. After all, there are
cases such as _Vernanimalcula_ or _Mawsonites_ where some would call them
organic, some would not.
The same would be true for the Polish "titanosaur" _Succinodon putzeri_ and
the Belgian "hadrosaur" _Aachenosaurus multidens_. Both were once thought
to be dinosaurs, but the former is just a chunk of fossilized wood bored
into by bivalves (not a titanosaur jawbone), and the latter was based on
pieces of silicified wood (not hadrosaur jaw fragments). Strictly speaking,
both these genera were based on organic material (unlike Christopher's
examples). Both _Succinodon_ and _Aachenosaurus_ are valid as names (since
both genera were described), and both should be treated as _nomina dubia_ .
There's no reason why both names should be expunged as _nomina oblita_.
Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!