[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

Wait a sec, Lambert's name has stuck for 22 years, so i don't think the 
paleontological community
regards it as nomen nudum.
The original species 'Coloradi' brevis was published with description and 
diagnosis, so that
doesn't matter. The fact is that Coloradisaurus is simply a replacement name. 
We have replacement
names for preoccupied genera all published formally all the time WITHOUT 
diagnosis - the authors
simply needs to refer to the original paper to diagnoses. For example look at 
the Chatterjee &
Creisler paper (1991) renaming Alwalkeria & Morturneria. All the authors needed 
to do here was
adjust their etymologies. 

--- K and T Dykes <ktdykes@arcor.de> wrote:

> <<This is what happened: Before publication of the book, José Bonaparte had
> apparently told Lambert that he had renamed this genus _Coloradisaurus_, and
> Lambert published the name assuming that Bonaparte had already published the
> new name.  He hadn't. Lambert was (and maybe still is) enormously
> embarrassed about this.  Nevertheless, Lambert (not Bonaparte) gets credit
> for naming _Coloradisaurus_.>>
> I can name-drop, seeing as I heard from David Lambert a couple of years ago
> about something totally different!  We only corresponed a bit, but he was
> very kind and of impeccable manners.
> Wouldn't his inadvertent pre-emption be irrelevant, Tim?  I take it he
> didn't publish an adequate description.  That's not the sort of thing you
> could do accidentally.  If so, then I'd have thought Lambert's usage would
> have been a nomen (extremely) nudum, and the name would still have been
> available.  I should point out I don't actually know what I'm going on
> about, but that's nevertheless my understanding.
> Cheers
> Trevor

Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005