[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



Thomas Holtz wrote-
 
> Here's the news, though. Science is a process. It takes time. Longer timethan 
> fanboys (and professionals) would like sometimes, but timenonetheless. Get 
> the frak over it. Deal.
 
Of course good science takes time.  Ideally, we would have as much time as we 
need to get papers naming new taxa prepared and published.  I was just saying 
that the threat of easy publication might force us to change IF we care that 
much about what the things are named.  Perhaps authors could write a quick note 
naming the taxon, providing a diagnosis and such to make it ICZN compliant, 
then doing the real science later.  Sort of like a Nature or Science paper, I 
suppose.  But then again, people complain (with good cause) about that kind of 
paper.  Again though, I'm not saying these are preferable or even good 
solutions, but they may be the kinds of things that are necessary if 
professionals want to retain the right to name their taxa.
 
Gregory Paul wrote-

> << Paul's Dinosaurs of the Air is quite high quality>>
>
> Why am I being dragged into this? DA is a peer reviewed University Press
> book that made no genus-species taxonomic conclusions.
 
I never meant to imply it wasn't peer reviewed or that you technically 
published it yourself.  After all, Gay's paper was also peer reviewed and 
published by a separate company.  I just intended it as an example of a quality 
work that wasn't published in a traditional journal.  We can use PDW as an 
example if you prefer, since you did quite a bit of nomenclatural work there.  
And really, this emphasizes that what people in this thread care about is not 
SELF publication (since Gay has no ownership of Lulu), but rather publication 
that the community is powerless to prevent.  And that applies to books as much 
as Gay's or Olshevsky's works.
 
Jaime Headden wrote-
 
> Madsen and Welles wrote most of their paper together, prepared from an 
> unfinished manuscript Welles had initially prepared. Welles passed way during 
> this process, leaving Madsen to finish it. Madsen did not receive the same 
> manuscript in the same manner as Pickering, and then just add his own flare 
> to it. There is a substantive amount of writing in Madsen and Welles that 
> shows development (and knowledge) of the work that came after Welles' 
> original manuscript, based on Pickering's assertions that he edited and 
> annotated what was Welles' work, then cut it into his pieces as "previews" 
> and the actual work shown therein. This indicates that there are substantial 
> differences in the effort Madsen took versus Pickering, as their situations 
> (including handling of Welles' work) are entirely different.
 
But how do you know that?  I certainly don't want to be seen as taking 
Pickering's side, but almost the entire paper reads like Welles' works (e.g. 
Dilophosaurus) and not Madsen's (e.g. Allosaurus, Marshosaurus).  There are no 
references covering the time after Welles' death, and the (extremely short) 
systematics section contains things that would never be seen in a paper from 
2000, such as putting Proceratosaurus in Ceratosauridae and using the name 
Podokesauridae.
 
Finally, Jaime Headden wrote-
 
> That Pickering presented his material to parties he was agreeable to, but 
> without deposition in readily accessible public facilities, it is virtually 
> impossible to attain a copy of this without 1) asking someone else who has it 
> or 2) asking Pickering [impossible if he hates you]. This is not how publicly 
> available (and ICZN-mandated) works should be handled; this (and this alone) 
> is what disqualifies Pickering's self-publication as ICZN-incompatible.
 
And Dan Chure wrote-
 
> I think the core issue is whether or not they meet publication requirements 
> for being valid.
 
We're arguing different issues then.  I thought this thread (Pickering's nomina 
nuda) was about the need for action to prevent "rogue taxonomists" like 
Pickering from publishing in venues like Lulu that could be seen as ICZN 
compliant.  Not about whether Lulu is ICZN compliant or what the status of 
Pickering's previously distributed papers is.
 
Mickey Mortimer                                           
_________________________________________________________________
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