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

RE: Pterosaur Species List updates



Tim Williams wrote-
 
> _Avgodectes_ was not published in a journal at all. It was published in 
> "Prehistoric Times". In an ideal world, that alone should be grounds for 
> dismissing the name as a _nomen nudum_. But when it comes to names in the 
> "gray" literature (popular or quasi-scientific publications) the ICZN Code is 
> very vague on whether such publications are valid for nomenclatural purposes. 

The boundary between a journal and a magazine is pretty vague.  Especially one 
like Prehistoric Times, where professional paleontologists write many articles. 
 Sure it's not very technical, but it's moreso than "The Field Guide to 
Dinosaurs", and no one ever complains about Coloradisaurus.  In fact, 
Avgodectes has a better case for being valid, since Peters actually intended to 
name it (while Lambert tought Bonaparte had already published Coloradisaurus) 
and Peters has written in the technical literature, unlike Lambert.

Mike Hanson wrote-

> Then why was Manospondylus ever a problem to begin with? It was a poorly 
> preserved vertebra that could just as well have been from some tyrannosaurid 
> other then Tyrannosaurus. There didn't need to be an ICZN ruling on its use 
> because nothing could be referred to it and it could not be referred to 
> anything!
 
With Manospondylus, size itself was a valid diagnostic character for 
Tyrannosaurus, at least until Tarbosaurus came along.
 
Mickey Mortimer