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

Re: Question for the pterosaur set...



--- Mike Hanson <mhanson54@comcast.net> wrote:

> There are definite shades of 'Aetogate' in this
> situation. Kellner and Campos likely knew of Unwin
> et al.'s intention of publishing this name
> beforehand and published anyway. 

Ummm... although I am no fan of the name and the paper
itself is rather anoying to read given the whole
trans-atlantic lovers quarrel between Kellner and
Martil, I would refrain from lumping this into the
'Aetogate' category. T. imperator is Kellner's
specimen so I believe he had every right to rename it
him self. I suppose the whole situation is a little un
satisfying, I don't know why Unwin and Martil would
try to rename it without Kellners involvement (well I
do, see my trans-atlantic lovers quarrel comment) or
why they didn't just use T. navigans as type species.
But there certainly isn't a 'pterogate' in the same
vein as the NMMN&S 'Aetogate' in the making. 


Cheers,
Christopher Collinson


      
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping