[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




Michael Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> wrote:


> In any case, I
> wasn't arguing Pickering's current works are valid-  I
> was arguing about his stated intent to publish them on
> Lulu.com.  If they're offered there for print sale they
> don't need to be deposited in institutions according to the
> ICZN.  Nor does the ICZN care about editing or peer
> review.  


Yes, but maybe it should care.  And if the ICZN doesn't care, maybe the rest of 
us should.


OK, I'm going to name a new species of _Tyrannosaurus_, and I'm going to submit 
it as a Letter to Playboy.  (People only ever read Playboy for the articles 
anyway).  "Tyrannosaurus mofo" I'm going to call it, diagnosed by an 
extra-large pubic shaft.  Somehow I'm going to work the diagnosis into the 
narrative of my Letter.  If Playboy turns me down, I'm off to Lulu.com.


Under ICZN rules, "T. mofo" as published by Playboy and/or Lulu.com is a valid 
species.  Prove me wrong Mickey!  


;-)

> They wouldn't retain their earlier dates of
> course, but they would be just as valid as Gay's paper.


So if a paper appeared in Lulu.com that contained "Elaphrosaurus 
philtippetorum", "Altispinax lydekkeriheunensis" and whatever other names 
spring forth from the genius of S. Pickering... you would accept the names as 
valid?


> While I think
> Pickering's Archosauromorpha papers are usually at least as
> good as the Kayentavenator paper description-wise, that was
> taking into account the fact Pickering's papers are
> extracts.  Thus they have no title, abstract,
> introduction, systematic work, discussion or
> bibliography.  


But apart from that... they're OK?



Cheers

Tim