[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



Forgive an outsider's ignorance, but isn't that just a valid *name*? The 
judgment that it is a valid species depends on whether or not specialists use 
it, surely?

If you all [taxonomists/paleontologists] think the species is badly described, 
or synonymous with some other name, or is just an invention, aren't you free to 
ignore it in your publications? And shouldn't you? If Lulu.com is the source of 
some description you think is wrong, then don't mention it.

I do think the issue of theses is a problem, though. If some student has done 
the hard work well, names a species but is gazumped by a self-publisher, then 
there is a priority issue. Perhaps the ICZN should be amended to "hold" a 
passed thesis description and naming until the student has a chance to get it 
published, preventing others from taking priority. Given that in other ways 
science will use evidence of an informal literature such as correspondence to 
decide priority issues (Leibniz and Newton, and Hooke and Newton being two 
cases), this should be something the Code allows.

On 12/06/2010, at 2:51 PM, Tim Williams wrote:

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

-- 
John Wilkins, Assistant Professor, Philosophy, Bond Uni 
Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
john@wilkins.id.au
"Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows 
suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'." 
<http://xkcd.com/552/>