[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: <gerarus@westnet.com.au>
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 3:52 AM

[...] most people will overlook the restriction (I know I would
have :-( ).

I have. :-)

(in my experience, _ex_ is used a lot more commonly than _vide_

You are a botanist, right? :o)

(for instance, if Mike coined
a _nomen nudum_ somewhere that I later validated by publishing a
description, an appropriate citation would be Keesey _ex_ Taylor).

Do botanists do that? In zoology, nomina nuda officially don't exist (e. g. they don't participate in the homonymy and synonymy games), and if you validly published the name before the original author, you'd usually be seen as robbing him -- see the *Galve(o)saurus* case; the original author would _not_ be cited at all because he wouldn't have had anything to do with making the name valid.

So in this case, the appropriate citation would be _Europasaurus
holgeri_ Mateus, Laven & Knötschke _in_ Sander, Mateus, Laven &
Knötschke 2006.


Ain't taxonomy grand?

Just nomenclature :^)