[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



  The writing is not the issue. In this case, Pickering states that the 
manuscript from which he produced the taxonomic works was written by Welles, 
and touched up and placed into out-of-context works about fractals and movies 
that have little to do with the structure of the piece included. How much of 
that work was Welles has yet to be determined, but we only have Pickering's 
word on the details. Following this, Welles was actually involved in virtually 
all of the writing on the Madsen & Welles paper, and we can glean from this 
that this work was also built on that same manuscript, and produced in a form 
and published in a manner consistent with the ICZN. The distinction is not only 
the manner in which it was produced for the public, but the manner in which it 
was edited and reviewed. Pickering's works are NOT valid, flat-out, because he 
refuses to deposit them in available institutions/libraries, and because he 
refuses to permit even valid workers to receive them. Not to make this point 
too hard, Mickey, but you will recall that you asked Pickering for those same 
papers several years ago, and apart from the invective he used, he refused. 
This is essentially a private work that was not intended for public 
consumption. How can it compete for nomenclature?

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: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 01:20:35 -0700
> From: mickey_mortimer111@msn.com
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: RE: Pickering's nomina nuda (was RE: Rob Gay's print-on-demand 
> publication of Kayentavenator elysiae
>
>
> I don't think this is quite fair. Being one of the few people to actually see 
> Pickering's papers, I can say that most of them are at least on par with 
> Gay's Kayentavenator paper. Sure the King Kong / Jurassic Park one is quite 
> problematic in content, but the Archosauromorpha: Cladistics and Osteologies 
> ones (describing Dilophosaurus "breedorum" and such) are professionally done. 
> They feature correct anatomical terminology, unlike Gay's work (greater 
> trochanter "fused" to femoral head; "distal dorsal" vertebrae), and read like 
> one of Welles' published papers as opposed to a school report. I'm certainly 
> aware of the problems with Pickering, but remember most of his taxa are based 
> on Welles' and Powell's research.
>
> As an example, Ceratosaurus "willisobrienorum" was later described by Madsen 
> using Welles' research, based on the writing similarity to Welles' 
> Dilophosaurus description. But Madsen clogged up taxonomy even more than 
> Pickering would, because he described what Welles and Pickering considered 
> one species as two- C. magnicornis and C. dentisulcatus. And these species 
> are as poorly diagnosed as Kayentavenator or anything Pickering has named. 
> But I haven't heard any complaints about Madsen and Welles' paper, even 
> though it's the exact thing that Pickering wants to do and identical in 
> quality. So why the emphasis on stopping Pickering (besides personal 
> disputes)?
>
> Furthermore, what about all the papers that are worse than Pickering's or 
> Gay's? Take any of Malkani's taxa for instance (Vitakridrinda, Brohisaurus, 
> Balochisaurus, Khetranisaurus, Marisaurus, Pakisaurus, Sulaimanisaurus). 
> These are based on near certainly (and sometimes even admittedly!) 
> indeterminate fragments, which more than one paleontologist has said look 
> like rocks. But at least they're in official journals. Because that's what 
> counts, right? There are SO MANY papers published in accepted journals that 
> contain statements or conclusions that anyone knowledgable in the field of 
> study would call bullshit on, so why does it even matter that they're not 
> self published?
>
> We definitely have a problem with shoddy work getting published, but banning 
> self publication isn't the solution. I'm especially concerned by Chure's 
> proposal to ignore nomenclature in formats he doesn't find official enough, 
> regardles of what the ICZN says. Sure you may be fine with ignoring 
> Tyrannosaurus "stanwinstonorum" if it's ever ICZN-official, but why stop 
> there? I for one think the description of Dandakosaurus is a pile of crap 
> that wouldn't pass review by any competant dinosaur expert living since 1910. 
> So quality-wise, it's basically self published as there was no peer review to 
> speak of. Am I thus free to ignore it and describe the specimen myself with a 
> different name? I don't think so.
>
> Mickey Mortimer
>
> ----------------------------------------
>> Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 20:46:14 -0700
>> From: tijawi@yahoo.com
>> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
>> CC: tijawi@yahoo.com
>> Subject: RE: Pickering's nomina nuda (was RE: Rob Gay's print-on-demand 
>> publication of Kayentavenator elysiae
>>
>>
>> This issue over whether Lulu Press qualifies as a valid venue for the 
>> publication of new names has now taken on an element of urgency. As of a few 
>> days ago, Stephan Pickering has announced that he is intending to use Lulu 
>> Press as a way of disseminating his own "dinosaurological scholarship" (his 
>> words, not mine).
>>
>> The can of worms is well and truly open. I know Rob Gay meant well, and his 
>> work is of a fairly high standard (scientifically speaking). But I fear that 
>> publications like his will be the exception. There are nutters out there who 
>> will interpret tacit acceptance of on-line self-publication as _cart 
>> blanche_. As Mike Tyalor presciently wrote:
>>
>> "If anything, it’s surprising that we don’t see a lot more rogue
>> taxonomy than we do, especially in a field as charismatic as
>> dinosaur palaeontology. [snip] I think we’re deluding ourselves if
>> we think this isn’t coming to dinosaur palaeo."
>>
>> Well, it's just around the corner. So unless anybody out there wants to see 
>> dinosaur paleontology polluted with a flood of nonsensical new dinosaur 
>> names, courtesy of the fevered imagination of Stephan Pickering, then this 
>> issue needs to be resolved.
>>
>> I for one am not looking forward to tortuous discussions about whether 
>> "Tyrannosaurus stanwinstonorum" and "Ceratosaurus willisobrienorum" and 
>> "Velociraptor barbrastreisandorum" are valid species or not - all because 
>> the illustrious Mr Pickering has decided to name and describe these 
>> 'species' via Lulu Press. Such examples, which might once have been 
>> _reductiones ad absurdum_, are on the verge of becoming reality.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
>> --- On Thu, 10/6/10, Jaime Headden wrote:
>>
>>> From: Jaime Headden
>>> Subject: RE: Pickering's nomina nuda (was RE: Rob Gay's print-on-demand 
>>> publication of Kayentavenator elysiae
>>> To: "Dan Chure" , Dinosaur.Mailing.List@listproc.usc.edu
>>> Received: Thursday, 10 June, 2010, 9:29 PM
>>>
>>> Because unlike dissertations, self-publishing and online
>>>
>> he 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 dissertat
>> ons 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 dissertat
>> ational 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
>>> val
>> ise 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,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jaim
>> en
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> aft
>> -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:04
>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> _________________________________________________________________
> The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3
                                          
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3