[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Gigantspinosaurus: a legit name (was RE: Almost New Papers)
Tom Holtz wrote:
Sadly, it is legit and so we don't get to improve the name. Susannah
Maidment (Cambridge) presented a stegosaur paper at SVP last year with this
critter in it. Afterwards I asked about its
status, and as far as she can tell Ouyang 1992 represents a valid work
for the purposes of taxonomic nomenclature.
Yes, the article that first describes _Gigantspinosaurus_ might fulfll
(barely) the letter of the ICZN Code - if not the spirit. However, one
potential loophole is offered by Article 9 ("What does not constitute
published work"). The last provision (9.9) states: "abstracts of articles,
papers, posters, texts of lectures, and similar material when issued
primarily to participants at meetings, symposia, colloquia or congresses."
Ouyeng (1992) may fit the bill, given that the article appears in a text
"The Satellite Meeting of the First Youth Academic Annual Confereces by
Association, Abstracts and Summaries for Youth Academic Symposium on
New Discoveries and
Ideas in Stratigraphic Paleontology, Nanjing, Dec. 1992."
Although it's clear that Ouyeng (1992) is more than just an abstract, it may
be that dissemination of the _Gigantspinosaurus_ description might have been
limited to attendees of this symposium. If so, it is not a valid
publication, according to Article 9.
The original 1992 publication also flouts a number of Recommendations ("Wide
dissemination", "Public accessibility of published works", etc) by dint of
the fact that the publication has escaped attention for so long (Dinosauria
II omits it, for example), and is almost impossible to acquire. Still,
these are just Recommendations.
David Marjanovic wrote:
Is it "sichanensis" in the original?
Because if the specific name contains an obvious typo, maybe we can make a
case that the generic name does, too?
I'm not sure the ICZN would be too sympathetic. The author would have to
make it clear that he intended to spell the name differently in the original
publication, and that something went awry (32.5.1). Even if more than one
spelling appeared in the original article (i.e., something other than the
lamentable "Gigantspinosaurus"), subsequent publications would appear to
have cemented the correct spelling as _Gigantspinosaurus_, since one of
these would serve as a de facto First Reviser (Article 24 - although 24.2.5.
may offer a glimmer of hope).
Rates near 39yr lows! $430K Loan for $1,399/mo - Paying Too Much? Calculate