[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

RE: Arambougiania Citation Redux



As Tim has already indicated, a name could arguably be published in
an "abstract" if the volume containing the abstract was published and
made available to the general public (as opposed to only distributed
to conference attendees). The main factor to be considered in regard
to valid publication is availability (a non-peer-reviewed magazine is
validly published because it is widely on sale, a reviewed thesis is
generally not because it is not likely to be available off-campus -
the ICZN does explicitly exclude newspapers, probably because
newspapers are generally only available on the day or week of issue).
In the case of a replacement name or a name for an already described
organism (unlike a name for an entirely new taxon), it doesn't take
much to constitute valid publication - only the new name and an
explicit, unambiguous indication of what the name is supposed to
refer to (remember _Avgodectes_?).
Another point that might be relevant in this case (as well, IIRC, as
for _Gigantspinosaurus_) is that just because the volume title
includes the word "Abstract" doesn't necessarily mean that the
section in question is an "abstract" as we would generally understand
the word ("abstract" can also mean a short summation paper - Darwin
introduced _The Origin of Species_ as an abstract). The page numbers
given below suggest that the reference in question is two pages long,
which gives a bit more space to establish a name (not to establish it
well, perhaps, but that's another matter). Of course, it could be a
single line at the bottom of one page and a single line at the top of
the next ;-). Someone would have to look at the actual reference to
find out.

    Cheers,

        Christopher Taylor

>
>---- Original Message ----
>From: twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com
>To: dinosaur@usc.edu
>Subject: RE: Arambougiania Citation Redux
>Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:36:58 -0500
>
>>Mike Taylor wrote:
>>
>>>  > Nessov, L.A., Kanznyshkina, L.F., and Cherepanov, G.O. 1987.
>Dinosaurs,
>>>  > crocodiles and other archosaurs from the Late mesozoic of
>central Asia 
>>>and
>>>  > their place in ecosystems. Abstracts of the 33rd session of the
>
>>>All-Union
>>>  > Palaeontological Society, Leningrad, pp. 46-47. [In Russian].
>>>
>>>Really?  Names can be raised in abstracts?  Ugh.
>>
>>This is a grey area.  According to the ICZN...
>>
>>"Article 9. What does not constitute published work. Notwithstanding
>the 
>>provisions of Article 8, none of the following constitutes published
>work 
>>within the meaning of the Code:
>>[snip]
>>"9.9. abstracts of articles, papers, posters, texts of lectures, and
>similar 
>>material when issued primarily to participants at meetings,
>symposia, 
>>colloquia or congresses."
>>
>>As with _Gigantspinosaurus_, _Arambourgiana_ may not fulfill 9.9. 
>However, 
>>this is difficult to prove, given that (among other things) it is
>hard to 
>>pin down what exactly is meant by "primarily"?
>>
>>Cheers
>>
>>Tim
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Need a break? Find your escape route with Live Search Maps. 
>>http://maps.live.com/?icid=hmtag3