[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" <email@example.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
Quoting "David Marjanovic" <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
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