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

Re: JVP 29(2) Spoiler Alert



David Marjanovic wrote:

> Waaaait, wait, wait, wait, wait. There is nothing to
> transliterate or latinize here -- _masticator_ already _is_
> a Latin word. And so is _millennii_. You're right about
> *Confuciusornis* and *Aberratiodontus*, but these are
> different cases. 


Nevertheless, it's a spelling error embedded in the genus name, so it can't be 
emended.  Unless the publication contains a version of the name without this 
spelling error, of course... then it could be argued that this was the intended 
spelling among competing versions in the same publication.


> (I'm not sure if "*Gigant_spinosaurus*"
> counts as validly published.)

Stegosaur workers have treated _Gigantspinosaurus_ as a valid name...

http://dml.cmnh.org/2007Mar/msg00013.html
http://dml.cmnh.org/2009Mar/msg00083.html

Although a case could be made to dispute its validity, I think this particular 
horse has bolted.

http://dml.cmnh.org/2007Mar/msg00039.html

> If *Angulomastacator* had been *Angulamastacator* as was
> originally posted here, the stupid extra _a_ would be
> protected by Art. 32.5.1; for *Minotaurasaurus*, this is in
> fact the case (...if that one is actually validly
> published... I think that was discussed here or on some
> blog). 

Yes, for _Minotaurasaurus_, the error is "an inappropriate connecting vowel", 
which is protected by the Code.

http://dml.cmnh.org/2009Jan/msg00173.html



Cheers

Tim