[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Odd nomenclatural sidenote for Europasaurus
On 6/7/06, Andrew A. Farke <email@example.com> wrote:
In the Europasaurus paper's acknowledgements, the authors state that,
"P.M.S. was responsible for the bone histology work presented as part of
this study. The morphology, systematics and taphonomy of the new sauropod
was studied by the remaining authors, who are to be considered the sole
authors of the name Europasaurus holgeri gen. et sp. nov."
So this implies that the name should be cited as "Europasaurus holgeri
Mateus, Laven and KnÃtschke 2006," rather than "Europasaurus holgeri Sander,
Mateus, Laven, and KnÃtschke 2006." I've never heard of such a thing before.
Is this really the sort of practice that will be followed? Should it be
followed? Or does the notation in the acknowledgements carry no weight
I believe the proper citation would be: _Europasaurus holgeri_ Mateus,
Laven, et KnÃtschke vide Sander, Mateus, Laven, et KnÃtschke 2006
(Substitute "and" for "et" if you like, naturally.)
There are a fair number of citations which use "vide" to distinguish
the namers of the taxon from the authors of the paper, when necessary.
The Dinosauricon: http://dino.lm.com
Parry & Carney: http://parryandcarney.com