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

re: Avgodectes

Believe me, I'm working on it.

A recent submission involving virtually every known pterosaur in the
world got nixed. Some don't want me to include tiny pterosaurs in the
matrix (not sure what the size cut-off would be). Others need me to
visit every taxon (this is common practice in matrices of 7 to 25
suprageneric taxa, hasn't been done in matrices over that) and get
confirmation from others (which I requested in 2002 without response).

It's very typical for my papers to run the gauntlet before publication.

It's funny, how at one time everyone was shaking their finger saying
'without a cladogram there is no evidence' but when a cladogram is
supplied that reflects past work ? and only departs dogma with the
addition of taxa (see Müller 2004 to see how important taxon
selection/addition is) then feathers start to fly.

I don't see why such papers aren't allowed to be published. One can
always ignore or trash them later. After all, family trees are only
hypotheses. And shedding new light on long-forgotten fossils ain't bad.

David Peters
St. Louis

PS: Still looking for:

1. Evidence of a deep chord wing on a pterosaur
2. Evidence that baby pterosaurs were cute (short rostra, big eyes) and
that they morphed into adults.
3. Evidence of what basal plantigrade pteros did with that dang big
lateral toe while walking (see keyword: 'sauria aberrante' for the alt.
4. Evidence that pterosaurs were related to dinosaurs, or any archosaur.

5. Evidence that Avgodecetes was an ornithocheirid

Christopher Taylor wrote:

            According to the new edition of the ICZN, incorrect
derivation does not
         preclude a name from being valid. So even if the name doesn't
mean exactly
         what Dave intended, it still stands.

Yep, you only get one bite of the cherry. Like incorrect spelling or bad
gramma, incorrect etymology is not considered a justification for
re-naming a taxon.

However, one could claim that _Agyodectes_ is not a valid name, given
the method of publication (which may not conform to ICZN rules). Thus,
Peters could
publish his new genus in a peer-reviewed scientific publication, and get
a second 'crack' at naming it - this time with the correct etymology.
BTW, I'm not
criticizing Peters or the publication that the name of his 'egg-biting'
pterosaur appeared in; I'm just putting the idea 'out there'.