[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Publication and the Code
Because the ICZN doesn't require publication in a proper journal, nor
peer review, in order to create a valid name. It may not meet the
standards that the profession sets itself, but that doesn't influence
That said...is this even self-published according to the ICZN? Unlike
the Kayentavenator booklet, which was published in print from an
on-demand publisher, this is just a pdf, and to my knowledge no
durable copies have been circulated to institutions or even
individuals (I assume there are people with printed copies, but not
enough that they are known).
So this may fall short of ICZN requirements, unless they are
depositing copies at major institutions unbeknownst to us all. I
suppose this could still be in flux, but at this point I think it
would probably fall (just) short.
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:07 PM, Lee Hall <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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.
> Lee Hall
> Paleontology Undergraduate
> Museum of the Rockies
> Montana State University
> Bozeman, MT
> 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 Some think the ICZN is quite out of date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.
Scientific Advisor/Technical Illustrator