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

RE: Me vs. Makovicky et al.- comparison and consensus

Mickey Mortimer (mickey_mortimer111@msn.com) wrote:

<Regarding Enigmosauria, we've been over this all before.  It's not a 
family-level name, so the ICZN doesn't cover it.>

  Which is fine, and I've stopped trying to use the ICZN to argue about nomina
nuda and instead argued from a position about application and use of names that
were not only not published except in figures, but required personal, special
information not published to apply the name to any usage. Without such applied
useage, the name can be used for ANYTHING, including a clade including
*Enigmosaurus*, some clade based on an unspecified apomorphy, a node, a stem,
etc. That you don't KNOW this means it's usage is unspecified. The name doesn't
exist for the purposes of using it anywhere, unlike all other taxon names in
print. The best I can offer is quotes around the vernacular, used by Holtz
onlist, but you have chosen to not only reject that, but use it as a proper
name without quotes, as if it were published and viable. 

<Phylocode doesn't go into  effect until 1-1-200n.>

  As if I care? There's still enough difficulties with it that it may not for
years. And even then, someone will need to specify the name to apply it and
have it matter definitively in any way. Even before then, no code and no
scientist uses it.

<Thus, as with Coelurosauria or Deinocheirosauria or any other
supra-family-level taxon, it CAN'T be official.>

  Actually, those names, unlike the name in question, have specified uses and a
literature for their history. This literature will be used to anchor the names
to definitions for formalized usage under PhyloCode rules, and if the ICZN gets
on board and goes "above the family level" will work for that, too. Notice,
however, that I didn't bring up the PhyloCode, but only application via
definition (and other times, included taxa and diagnoses).

<The only difference is that we know it was supposed to be edited out of the
paper, but it wasn't.  Oops.>

  And the authors requested it not be used, just like Dan Chure did for his
thesis names. Oops.

<The name's published, regardless of intentions.>

  A figure? Is a picture viable as a publication source? A poster? Why, for
example, are you asked NOT to use poster information or repeat non-abstract
data at symposia? Go on, guess. Unlike the text of a paper, which is the
property of the publication house that issued it, pictures have copywrites
owned by the authors (unless otherwise stated). That means you are actually
copying owned data, specified without permission to be used for scientific
purposes. Since the authors (well, just Naish) requested politely NOT using
this, there's more to it. This is a problem for you even beyond just this name.

<Myself, I view taxonomy based on what's published, not what's intended.>

  And a figure wasn't purposely taxonomically applied. Once again, a name
floating in aether needs to be specifically applied for consistent use. For the
moment, Mickey has personal specificity about the use of this name that has
never been published.
<Regarding "Alashansaurus", it's been published in Glut (2003).  The latter
isn't available for taxonomic purposes, as it includes a disclaimer, so it's 
still a nomen nudum.>

  The ethics of Chure asking not to have the name used makes me wonder why Glut
used the name. Out of respect, don't use it? Naw, too easy. Suddenly the
authorship of a nomen nudum is Glut, 2003. As that the author of the name? NO,
it was Chure, but credit goes to Glut because he stepped ahead of himself. This
is also why theses are not used as primary sources of data. Correct me if I am
wrong, please, and how this validates using a name because someone else did
what Chure didn't want done?

<Much as with Enigmosauria, I view taxonomy based on what's published.>

  And since it wasn't ... ?

<Perhaps, though being a published nomen nudum certainly didn't hurt
Chaoyangsaurus (and that was for over fifteen years!).  But what's done is 
done, and I'm not one to let (even unfortunate) taxonomy slip under the rug as
if it has never existed.>

  And look at the issues that arose from having a name floating around until
someone got around to describing *Chaoyangsaurus* (which was known by another
name as an nomen nudum, btw), since it was virtually useless, had no meaning in
a faunal listing since no one reading it would know it's use, etc. Would you
ahve known what I meant by finding a "Astarasaurus" in the Morrison Formation?
I'll publish the name in a faunal listing, but without any other data, and tell
you privately that it's a new ankylosauroid with *Saichania*-like cranial
ornamentation, thus it's probably an ankylosaurine. Does this mean you can now
reference "Astarasaurus" as an ankylosaurine? Such is the same situation, using
a published name without reference via the private information gleaned from
websites and chatting and a mailing list or two. But none of this application
is published. The name would be useless, as I see it, as Darren Naish saw it,
and as Dan Chure saw it, as well.

  Mickey, if you really want to use it, it will only require a study of all the
analyses supporting the topology everyone talks about, and you can apply it as
you think you know people are using it. The application will be YOUR version
(since you don't know how Martill and Naish were applying it), and the name
will be "'blankosauria' Mortimer, 200?"


Jaime A. Headden

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)

Yahoo! Music Unlimited 
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.