[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Publication and the Code
Why be worried about this? It's not in a legitimate journal, and
therefore it isn't a legitimate publication. Thus, it has as much
merit as some scribbles on a fancy napkin.
Museum of the Rockies
Montana State University
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Tim Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Dan Chure <email@example.com> wrote:
>> This paper might be of concern because this is a privately
>> published monograph, published by a commercial entity
>> digging and selling fossils, creates a new taxon that
>> synonymizes a number of long recognized distinct sauropod
>> genera into it, and the "new" species' skeletons may be up
>> for sale in the future.
> It also declares _Apatosaurus ajax_ a nomen dubium. I suspected somebody
> would do this one day; but I thought it would appear in a reputable
> scientific work.
> As Mike Taylor says, the "Amphicoelias brontodiplodocus" specimen is
> gorgeous. But the monograph (or is it a brochure?) is of poor quality
> scientifically. It reminds me of the "Dinosaur Museum Journal" from several
> years ago.
>> The issue of self publication
>> of new taxa is occurring with some regularity in the
>> dinosaurian arena of paleontology, but could impact any
>> aspect of VP. Some think the ICZN is quite out of date
>> on the self publication issue and have handed down some
>> faulty decisions about it in disciplines other than
>> VP. Others think that this is okay and will just sort
>> itself out. I am not of the latter opinion.
> Nor am I. When it comes to self-publication, the ICZN is asleep at the
> wheel. This is unfortunate, because self-publication offers a 'backdoor'
> route to the naming of new genera and species that is ripe for abuse, and the
> ICZN seems content to wave them through.
> If it came to a case before the ICZN, then there is no reason why ICZN would
> not accept "Amphicoelias brontodiplodocus" as a nomenclaturally valid name.
> After all, it ticks all the right boxes in the Code. This is not an
> endorsement of the publication, BTW; it's just that the Code's rules
> regarding what constitutes valid publication (Article 8) are so vague and
> anemic that it is not difficult to fulfill the Code's criteria.
> Self-publication is implicitly permitted as long as a token effort is made
> to provide a public and
> ns recommendations regarding the desirability of publication in 'appropriate
> scientific journals', and that it be deposited in a library. But because
> these are mere recommendations, they might as well be written in invisible
>> Nevertheless, I thought that it would be useful for members
>> of these list to be aware of this publication and its
> The implications are ominous. Considering the ease with which a glossy,
> professional-looking publication can be put together, this sort of
> self-publication could be the tip of the iceberg.
> I know the 'paleontological community' is not monolithic (including those who
> work in the dinosaurian arena). But given the permissive attitude of the
> ICZN, the safest course of action would be to simply ignore this name (i.e.,
> treat it as a nomen nudum). Recognizing "Amphicoelias brontodiplodocus" as
> valid is only going to encourage the naming of new dinosaurs in
> self-published, poor-quality publications.