[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
*sigh* Jaime A. Headden 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
nuda and instead argued from a position about application and use of names
were not only not published except in figures, but required personal,
information not published to apply the name to any usage. Without such
useage, the name can be used for ANYTHING, including a clade including
*Enigmosaurus*, some clade based on an unspecified apomorphy, a node, a
etc. That you don't KNOW this means it's usage is unspecified. The name
exist for the purposes of using it anywhere, unlike all other taxon names
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.
The problem is, once you stop trying to use the ICZN, you run into the fact
no other body rules over animal taxonomy. So at best you have fuzzy
"unspoken rules" and personal preferences (which I am aware of and would
appreciate it if you ceased reminding me). You don't like a name only used
in a figure? Oh well. The entire paleontological community agrees with
you? Oh well. You don't like using taxa with an unspecified definition?
Oh well. The paleontological community does it constantly. Carpenter et
al. (2005) just used Coeluridae. What's that? Node-based, stem-based?
Hwang et al. (2002) used Compsognathidae. Same deal until Holtz et al.
(2004). The unspecified definition is NOT what makes you care about
Enigmosauria, so don't bother bringing it up. Anyone who understands
cladograms would understand Enigmosauria refers to the therizinosaur +
oviraptorosaur clade in the published figure. We don't need DML
confirmation, we just happen to have it. If you agrue otherwise, well... I
guess you just can't read cladograms well.
<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
literature for their history. This literature will be used to anchor the
to definitions for formalized usage under PhyloCode rules, and if the ICZN
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).
By which you mean they are older, yes. And people continued to use them
instead of opting out of referring to a clade they continue to support by a
name. Just because everyone else is ignoring it does not make it
<The only difference is that we know it was supposed to be edited out of
paper, but it wasn't. Oops.>
And the authors requested it not be used, just like Dan Chure did for
thesis names. Oops.
Like I said, I'm not one to ignore published taxonomy. It's not like
there's some important study in the pipeline that should get the chance to
"officially" name Enigmosauria. Anyone could do it at any time, if not for
this ****ed stigma surrounding it. Makovicky et al. just named and defined
a clade that dissolved with ~15 corrected codings and has never been found
previously. Enigmosauria has been found since 1997, and is supported by the
most extensive published analyses to date. I wish someone would have the
balls to publish it more extensively.
<The name's published, regardless of intentions.>
A figure? Is a picture viable as a publication source? A poster? Why,
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
A figure in a PUBLISHED book is published, yes. A difficult concept to wrap
one's head around, I agree. Posters at symposia are not distributed en
masse, so are not published. It has nothing to do with pictures vs. text.
Good luck finding some legal rule stating persons may request terms in
figures published by a publishing house not be used for scientific purposes.
Commercial purposes, maybe. Scientific purposes, the law doesn't care.
<Regarding "Alashansaurus", it's been published in Glut (2003). The latter
isn't available for taxonomic purposes, as it includes a disclaimer, so
still a nomen nudum.>
The ethics of Chure asking not to have the name used makes me wonder why
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?
it was Chure, but credit goes to Glut because he stepped ahead of himself.
is also why theses are not used as primary sources of data. Correct me if I
wrong, please, and how this validates using a name because someone else did
what Chure didn't want done?
Because it's already done, and I don't like pretending taxonomy didn't
<Much as with Enigmosauria, I view taxonomy based on what's published.>
And since it wasn't ... ?
Glut's encyclopedia was certainly published. Not viable for new taxonomy,
but published nonetheless.
<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
if it has never existed.>
And look at the issues that arose from having a name floating around
someone got around to describing *Chaoyangsaurus* (which was known by
name as an nomen nudum, btw), since it was virtually useless, had no
a faunal listing since no one reading it would know it's use, etc.
Yes, look at the issues.... why, all hell broke loose if I recall correctly.
There was a rush of amateurs trying to name it officially ahead of Zhao.
All had to be stricken down by a petition to the ICZN. Everyone was
confused about its alternate spellings. We still don't know what organisms
"Chaoyoungosaurus" and "Chaoyangosaurus" were supposed to specify to this
day. Nothing was known about it at all! Multiple sources called it a
theropod, while others claimed it was sauropod. Man, was Dong (1992) ever
embarrassed when he preliminarily described it as a small basal ceratopsian
with a flared jugal and premaxillary canines from the Tuchengzi Formation of
Liaoning, only to have Zhao et al. (1999) reveal it was in actuality a small
basal ceratopsian with a flared jugal and premaxillary canines from the
Tuchengzi Formation of Liaoning. Egg was surely on his face. It's amazing
we all survived the Great Chaoyangsaurus Debacle of 1983-1999 in one piece.
No, wait, none of this ever happened.
Mickey, if you really want to use it, it will only require a study of
analyses supporting the topology everyone talks about, and you can apply it
you think you know people are using it. The application will be YOUR
(since you don't know how Martill and Naish were applying it), and the name
will be "'blankosauria' Mortimer, 200?"
If no one does more extensively publish Enigmosauria or another name for the
therizinosaur-oviraptorosaur clade by the time I publish my results (so
within the next ~4 years maybe), and I recover it in my mpt's, I will name
the clade. There's no reason not to.