[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Abelisauroid name accidentally published?
> In late 2006, Coria, Currie, and Carbajal (some alliteration for you
>there) published a description of abelisauroid remains from Patagonia
>(abstract: http://dml.cmnh.org/2006Dec/msg00078.html). This is the
specimen >MCF-PHPV-237, which is used to describe the remains
throughout. However, in >one of the graphics for the paper, a rather
uncreative generic name is used >in place of the specimen number. I
don't want to use the name in case it's >in press or something (starts
with "B"), but it appears nowhere in the text >of the article and is not
defined or diagnosed. It is bolded and in a large >font in the graphic,
so it clearly refers to the specimen in question.
While it is possible to establish a new taxon name in a figure caption,
the current Code requires an explicit statement about intent to name a
new taxon (at the very least, a "sp. nov." or such after the name), and
in the case of a new genus, an explicit designation of type species
(monotypy doesn't count as an automatic designation any more). Unless
the paper includes these things, the name would currently count as a
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.0/818 - Release Date:
25/05/2007 12:32 PM