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

Re: Abyssal's official pterosaur question thread

There is sort of a diagnosis but it doesn't have a specimen number, all that is 
mentioned is it is privately owned by Tischlinger.

David Marjanovic wrote:
> 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 
is 'P. tischlingeri' but the next mention, which is the only mention in the 
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? 
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