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

Re: Paratypothorac[...]ini was Re: Chromogisaurus novasi, new guaibasaurid (basal sauropodomorph)

I have now been told by several individuals now that the name is improperly
formed.  Unfortunately I was given bad information on how to form the name
in the original publication.  As the name is solely a clade name the ICZN
has no bearing on the name as it has been used.  Would changing the name
now simply just make the change a junior synonym of the older name? I
personally don't care which version becomes the one that is used
(Paratypothoracisini vs. Paratypothoracini), but would hope to be the one
to make the change to preserve authorship.

Maybe when Phylocode comes out, it will be a good time to address the

Bill Parker
Vertebrate Paleontologist
Division of Resource Management
Petrified Forest National Park
P.O. Box 2217
1 Park Road
Petrified Forest, AZ 86028
(928) 524-6228 x262

             David Marjanovic                                              
             @gmx.at>                                                   To 
             Sent by:                  DML <dinosaur@usc.edu>              
             owner-DINOSAUR@us                                          cc 
                                       Paratypothorac[...]ini was Re:      
             08/04/2010 07:03          Chromogisaurus novasi, new          
             AM                        guaibasaurid (basal sauropodomorph) 
             Please respond to                                             

Warning: ICZN pedantry ahead. Skip this message if that's not your thing.

>  I named the clade Paratypothoracisini in 2007

The only way I can see that this incorrectly formed name could be valid
in the first place is Article 29.5:

"Maintenance of current spellings. If a spelling of a family-group name
was not formed in accordance with Article 29.3 but is in prevailing
usage, that spelling is to be maintained, whether or not it is the
original spelling and whether or not its derivation from the name of the
type genus is in accordance with the grammatical procedures in Articles
29.3.1 <page.jsp?nfv=&article=29#3.1> and 29.3.2

Is it "in prevailing usage"? How often has it been used at all?

I don't think the ICZN defines "prevailing usage" anywhere. It's not in
the glossary either.