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

Re: Darwin's young dead pet from Messel

> Anyway, panic over: see this comment
>  http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/05/20/does-darwinius-exist/#comment-18433
> from the Manager Editor of PLoS ONE: they have now printed fifty
> identical copies of the article and made them available for purchase,
> and the ICZN Executive Secretary (backed by another Commissioner)
> advise that the article is now validly published, so that the name
> Darwinius is now nomenclaturally valid.

Well, it seems that the editors of Plos ONE should print copies of the
papers on Aerosteon, Panphagia and Maiacetus, and apparently also of
those ugly ants, to make them valid and avoid this problem, before
someone else tries to occupy these names or rename the specimens
(although of course, this someone will suffer the consequences). The
date of publication of Aerosteon will have to change from 2008 to 2009
in such a case...

Aside, why all this profitful discussion occurred with Darwinius and
not with all the other previously published genera?
Perhaps just because of the name honoring Darwin?