[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



  Because unlike dissertations, self-publishing and online press like _Zootaxa_ 
are intended for the public to view. They are not restricted on their 
readership like some tracts and pamphlets are. Self-publication is as 
legitimate a form of publication as newsprint, and we do not debate the role 
such works have as information trasnsmitters. Those who self-publish digitally 
have as much capability to distribute via word of mouth or press-release as any 
agency does, or through mailing lists where their colleagues or interested 
workers can participate. Once again, the thing that separates such things is 
the process of review and editing -- we merely need to adapt the conventions of 
separate journals, institutions, and organizations like the AAAS and 
Palaeontological Society to develop reviewers and editors.

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 20:06:02 -0600
> From: danchure@easilink.com
> To: qi_leong@hotmail.com
> CC: mike@indexdata.com; dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Pickering's nomina nuda (was RE: Rob Gay's print-on-demand 
> publication of Kayentavenator elysiae
>
> Actually, I agree with the decision that dissertations are not valid
> outlets for nomenclatorial actions. Those should go through the regular
> peer review process and be published in the appropriate journal. My
> point was that if dissertations are not a valid venue then how in the
> hell can self publication via Lulu Press or other similar outlets even
> be debated as acceptable.
>
> Dan
>
> Jaime Headden wrote:
>> So, a question arises:
>>
>> If dissertations of any stripe are considered legitimate publications, why? 
>> Are they works intended for the purpose of a public record? Many 
>> institutions at least restrict access or embargo their student's 
>> dissertations at all levels, making their contents "secret." This violates 
>> the idea of public availability, and would remove those institutions' 
>> dissertations from the list of acceptable publications, even though they 
>> _are_ publications in previously defined definitions of the term.
>>
>> If a dissertation is meant to be preliminary, but produces terminology that 
>> can otherwise compete for priority or usage, such as geologic or taxonomic 
>> nomenclature (that it produces this nomenclature in keeping with the ICZN, 
>> for example, or the IUGS), can it be permitted if the author indicates that 
>> he would otherwise publish this work?
>>
>> Can we retroactively consider dissertations to be published for the purposes 
>> of nomenclature or discussion, even when they are cites for the latter but 
>> not the former today, or are we restricted to dissertations only produced 
>> after the point at which they are considered viable?
>>
>> If a dissertation is peer-reviewed, does it go through the same anonymous 
>> review a paper in _Nature_ or _Palaeontology_ does, or is its review 
>> restricted to a panel hearing the oral presentation (if present), the review 
>> committee, and the acknowledged draft reviewers before the fact? Is this 
>> type of anonymous review required if the dissertation is meant only to be 
>> preliminary?
>>
>> Some, if not most, institutions in Europe hold their student's these and 
>> dissertations from the public, while those in the US are publically 
>> deposited and can be acquired at personal cost from a storage facility. Are 
>> only US dissertations available for the purpose of nomenclature, or can we 
>> just make this international and force the institutions of other countries 
>> to follow suit? Do we have the right of it, or they?
>>
>> These are all issues that plague dissertations and are, I think, the reason 
>> dissertational nomenclature is not considered viable for the purposes of the 
>> ICZN. I am willing to be corrected on this, if I've gotten anything here 
>> wrong. Note that I am not arguing that dissertations _should_ be excluded, 
>> but as it stands, some of them are treated differently than others, based on 
>> their home institutions or country's rules and laws.
>>
>> 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)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------
>>
>>> From: mike@indexdata.com
>>> Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:16:05 +0100
>>> Subject: Re: Pickering's nomina nuda (was RE: Rob Gay's print-on-demand 
>>> publication of Kayentavenator elysiae
>>> To: danchure@easilink.com
>>> CC: qi_leong@hotmail.com; tijawi@yahoo.com; dinosaur@usc.edu
>>>
>>> On 10 June 2010 13:07, Dan Chure 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.
>>>>
>>> What he said.
>>>
>>> The non-"published" status of a freely available dissertation is a
>>> complete nonsense.
>>>
>>> It'll be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with 
>> Hotmail.
>> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5
>>
>>
>
>
                                          
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4