[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Darwin's young dead pet from Messel
T. Michael Keesey writes:
> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 6:17 PM, David Marjanovic
> > ...So, *Darwinius* and *Maiacetus* are nomina nuda as far as I can tell.
> Don't forget Panphagia.
In fact, I think they are not even nomina nuda: the ICZN glossary
defines "nomen nudum (pl. nomina nuda), n." as "A Latin term referring
to a name that, if published before 1931, fails to conform to Article
12; or, if published after 1930, fails to conform to Article 13." But
these names are not "published" at all, in the sense of the Code
(articles 8 and 9), so they are not even available names.
And yet ... they are, aren't they? I think in sticking to its
paper-only guns, the ICZN is in real danger of allowing itself to
become an irrelevance. If the world at large goes ahead and uses
names like Darwinius, Maiacetus, Panphagia and Aerosteon (which seems
likely), then it'll be only a small step for people to think they may
as well ignore the other provisions of the Code, too. Not good.
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <email@example.com> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "Yeah, I just don't buy it" -- Phoebe Buffay.