[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



  This is based on a strict reading on the ICZN's allowances and exceptions. It 
is unlikely that the ICZN anticipated the advent of some methods of publication 
without paper, although it should have by 2000. It is also certainly imperative 
that the ICZN consider alternative methods of publication, even if it would be 
just to exclude them fro its list of accepted forms. PhyloCode takes into 
account method of publication being completely virtual, so it's at least "up 
with the times," although the definition of publication as based on 
internet-based blogging, opinion, etc., could use a little updating (i.e., 
simply restrict its use of publication to intent and/or purpose, or of that 
through second-party publishers, like newspapers).

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: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 06:07:18 -0600
> From: danchure@easilink.com
> To: qi_leong@hotmail.com
> CC: tijawi@yahoo.com; dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Pickering's nomina nuda (was RE: Rob Gay's print-on-demand 
> publication of Kayentavenator elysiae
>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
                                          
_________________________________________________________________
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