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

Re: An odd paper request

No ichnology is tucked away under the ICZN. Personally I think it should have its own code but people tend to make the argued that invert and vert ichnology are so different that applying a code for ichnotaxa would not work (but then you have to wonder why placing them into the ICZN would work?).

Quoting "Dan Chure" <danchure@easilink.com>:

Isn't there a separate code for ichnology? I recall discussions about such a thing some time back and thought something had been put together. Dan

tjshaw@ualberta.ca wrote:
Quoting "David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>:

I am been reading Bertling et al. 2006 and they mention that Reineck and Flemming give names to both human urinating traces and tyre traces. While I realize that these are nomina nuda

That would mean there's no description, which I doubt. Perhaps you mean nomina vana, which would mean there's no type specimen, but it's entirely possible there is.

Ichnotaxonomy is separate from taxonomy; animals and their works (such as traces) get separate sets of names that do not compete with each other.

Actually nomina nuda is the term Bertling et al. 2006 used when discussing the paper. I believe they chose the term based on the idea that since the second edition of the ICZN modern "works of animals"* named after 1931 are not allowed (Art. 1.2.1 or Art. 1.3.6 but that gives the date as 1930 not 1931 in the copy I am looking at). Reineck and Flemming essentially created a set of scientific names that are not allowed by the code. IF these count as nomina nuda or not is not really my place to say untill I see the paper, if there is no description and just names then in the strict sense of the term these would be nomina nuda along with being disallowed by the code. Likely there is a proper Latin term to be used in this situation but I will admit I do not know what it is; barring a paper I am writing for a class my interests/current research projects focus more on the biology of tracks and their makers then on nomenclature.

*I really don't like this term as technically after Art. 1.3.6 it refer only to fossils which are left undifined in the code (at which point will modern tracks and traces become fossils?) and to non animal works, as any trace that is fossilized falls under the rules of the ICZN when being named.


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.18/1848 - Release Date: 12/14/2008 12:28 PM