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

Re: Abyssal's official pterosaur question thread

Whole post repeated because it lacked line breaks:

Taking another look at the 'Paranurognathus' article I discovered two spellings of the species epithet. The first is seen in a caption of a figure and is 'P. tischlingeri' but the next mention, which is the only mention in the text proper is 'P. tichlingeri'. What's the opinion on 'proper' spellings of nomina nuda. If I include 'P. tischlingeri' in a list should I also include 'P. tichlingeri' because as it has not been properly described it cannot have a correct spelling, or should I only include the first instance of the name? Which is it then? The first in the text, or can captions count?

Are you sure it isn't properly described? If there's a specimen number, a description, and not much else, it's properly described, because Paleo-Times certainly counts as published.

If it is properly described, and if your list could ever count as properly published, you'll have to play First Reviser, which means you get to choose the correct spelling; and in that case PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE choose *P. tischlingeri*, because the man is actually called Tischlinger, and omitting the s would even change the pronunciation.