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

Re: Pickering's nomina nuda (was RE: Rob Gay's print-on-demand publication of Kayentavenator elysiae



Wow, this is so true.  I just think how different my life would have
been the past few years if this was the case.

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Dan Chure <danchure@easilink.com> wrote:
> I find it somewhat ironic that names in a dissertation which have gone
> through the peer review of a committee and a copy of which can be obtained
> either by purchase or sometimes free from either Dissertations International
> or the degree awarding institution are not considered published in an
> acceptable publication. but those self published  through  Lulu Press are.
>
> Dan
>
> Jaime Headden wrote:
>>
>>  I tend to regard nomina nuda as validly published nomenclature that do
>> not otherwise satisfy the ICZN's requirements for publication as nomina
>> valida. That is, were *Quetzalcoatlus northropi* published without a
>> concurrent description or photo, but in a legitimate venue, it would be a
>> nomen nudum. The same cannot be said of Pickering's taxa, since the ICZN
>> specifically indicates that the lack of satisfaction for two of its
>> requirements means that names he produced aren't even recognized nomina of
>> any sort. While both Mortimer and Olshevsky regard these taxa as nomina
>> nuda, I don't regard them as nomina at all. And not to rag on Mortimer and
>> Olshevsky too much, but there are names that are effectively _nicknames_ of
>> specimens that are used as nomina nuda, and the latter even argues for
>> dissertation-produced names for being nomina, nuda or otherwise, despite the
>> ICZN restricting dissertations from the list of acceptable publications.
>>  So there are really three levels to this:
>>
>>  1. Published terminology that roughly corresponds to a label for
>> something, be it a clade or a specimen, used as taxonomy. These are not
>> nomina of any sort.
>>
>>  2. Published terminology that meets some but not all of the ICZN's
>> requirements. These are nomina nuda or nomina vana, depending on the usage.
>>
>>  3. Published terminology that meets all of the ICZN's requirements. These
>> are nomina valida (unless set aside for formal reasons -- rejecta -- or
>> forgotten through disuse or disregard -- oblita).
>>
>>  A fourth category, should we feel inclined, lies between 1 and 2 (call it
>> 1.5) which corresponds to _lapsus calami_, and are not considered nomina
>> nuda or anything, and cannot compete for priority or be useful for elevation
>> of status, without special action in cases where two names are potential
>> lapses for one another.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Jaime A. Headden
>> The Bite Stuff (site v2)
>> http://qilong.wordpress.com/
>>
>> "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
>>
>>
>> "Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
>> different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
>> has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
>> his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a
>> Billion Backs)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------
>>
>>>
>>> Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 16:54:41 -0700
>>> From: tijawi@yahoo.com
>>> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
>>> CC: tijawi@yahoo.com
>>> Subject: Pickering's nomina nuda (was RE: Rob Gay's print-on-demand
>>> publication of Kayentavenator elysiae
>>>
>>> Jaime Headden  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As noted by Tim, Pickering's works are produced in a
>>>> fashion that prohibits access to them, a clear violation of
>>>> two of the ICZN's requirements for publication
>>>> (accessibility, and deposition), and by this reason are
>>>> regarded by the majority (if not all but a very small
>>>> number) of workers.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I really didn't think that *anyone* accepts Pickering's proposed new
>>> genera ("Walkersaurus") and species ("Elaphrosaurus philtippetensis",
>>> "Tyrannosaurus stanwinstonorum", etc) as valid. Even George Olshevsky, who
>>> has erected several dinosaurs names via self-publication, regards
>>> Pickering's names as nomina nuda (e.g., see
>>> http://www.polychora.com/dinolist.html).
>>>
>>>
>>> Pickering's self-published 'works' typically take the form of paranoid
>>> rants that cover a wide range of topics, from national socialism to Sigmund
>>> Freud to King King; the new dinosaur names are inserted as a kind of
>>> afterthought. However, neither the deplorable and self-indulgent quality of
>>> his works, nor the fact that the works were self-published, are the reasons
>>> why Pickering's names are universally held to be nomina nuda. As Jaime says,
>>> it is because Pickering made no attempt to establish a permanent scientific
>>> record. It appears that his 'works' (newsletters) were sent unsolicited to
>>> various paleontologists (and others, such as Steven Spielberg), and
>>> therefore qualify only as private correspondence.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thus, when Roger Benson erected the new genus _Duriavenator_ for
>>> _Megalosaurus hesperis_, the fact that Pickering had previously named the
>>> same species "Walkersaurus" had no impact at all on priority, because
>>> "Walkersaurus" was a nomen nudum.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nevertheless, it is a frightening thought that if Pickering had bothered
>>> to deposit his 'works', and made them accessible, that we might have been
>>> stuck with all his horrible monikers ("Elaphrosaurus philtippetensis", and
>>> so on). Then again, the more likely outcome is that subsequent workers would
>>> have ignored his plethora of names in their own publications - w
>>> o have happened anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>  _________________________________________________________________
>> Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your
>> inbox.
>>
>> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>