[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
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 <email@example.com> 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.
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005