[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Odd nomenclatural sidenote for Europasaurus
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu [mailto:owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu] On Behalf Of
> T. Michael Keesey
> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 3:37 PM
> To: Dinosaur Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Odd nomenclatural sidenote for Europasaurus
> On 6/7/06, Andrew A. Farke <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
> > 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 Knötschke 2006," rather than "Europasaurus holgeri
> > Mateus, Laven, and Knötschke 2006." I've never heard of such a thing
> > 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
> > whatsoever?
> I believe the proper citation would be: _Europasaurus holgeri_ Mateus,
> Laven, et Knötschke vide Sander, Mateus, Laven, et Knötschke 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.
Ok, cool. Now that you mention it I have seen this for a few taxa. Nothing
like an obscenely long citation. . .