[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Publication and the Code



Additional pictures and details on the new *Amphicoelias* here:

http://www.dinosauriainternational.com/downloads/Dinosaur%20proposal,%20May%202009%20without%20prices%20June%202009.pdf
http://dinosauriainternational.com/downloads/Brontodiplodocus.pdf

And to put in my two cents, I'd say that, at worse, a neotype may be
designated if ever the holotype of *Amphicoelias brontodiplodocus*
happened to be unavailable for study. Most of the time, this is the
case because: 1) the type was lost and/or destroyed; 2) it is housed
in a private collection or an institution closed to scientists. This
is also probably why most scientific journals refuse new taxa based on
specimens from private collections.

The holotype, when mounted, would have a length of about 25 m after
reconstruction. The ontogenetic age of the holotype is currently under
investigation:
"Preliminary observations suggest the individual was a young adult
when it died. However, the exact age of this individual is under
investigation at the Division of Paleontology, American Museum of
Natural History. This study will rely on taking a thin section of
sclerotic bone for dating; a first for sauropod paleobiology."

Ok, now a silly question: guess how much one will have to pay for
DQ-BS now that it is an holotype ?

...
And for those interested in the Paris fossil auction, the *Allosaurus*
skeleton was sold for 1.100.000 euros (~153.000 $) to an anonymous
private collector.

Cheers,
Jocelyn

2010/10/7 Tim Williams <tijawi@yahoo.com>:
> Snipped from my previous message:
>
> I wrote:
>
> 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 permanent scientific record.
>
>
> The ICZN Code contains 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 ink.
>
>
> In response, Brad McFeeters wrote:
>
>
>> No, I think "Amphicoelias brontodiplodocus" is obviously
>> invalid by ICZN standards, because Dinosauria International
>> hasn't made a print edition available for libraries (at
>> least, I see no mention of such in the .pdf or elsewhere on
>> their website).
>
>
> Having a print edition deposited in libraries is not a requirement of the 
> ICZN Code, merely a recommendation.
>
>
> Nevertheless, Article 8.6. states:
>
>
> "Works produced after 1999 by a method that does not employ printing on 
> paper. For a work produced after 1999 by a method other than printing on 
> paper to be accepted as published within the meaning of the Code, it must 
> contain a statement that copies (in the form in which it is published) have 
> been deposited in at least 5 major publicly accessible libraries which are 
> identified by name in the work itself."
>
>
> However, the "Amphicoelias brontodiplodocus" description is clearly intended 
> to be published in printed form.  The second page (page II) makes reference 
> to "Front Cover", "Inside Front & Back Covers", and "Back Cover".  So the PDF 
> is clearly designed to be printed, and is not simply a website.  The authors 
> could simply argue t
> ng to the iczn.org FAQ, "A proposed
>> amendment to the Code outlined mechanisms to allow
>> publication of nomenclatural acts in electronic-only
>> journals (but not on websites or other transient electronic media)."
>> And Dinosauria International is clearly a website, not a
>> journal.
>
>
> Firstly, at this stage this is only a *proposed* amendment.
>
> Secondly, the ICZN Code never (never EVER) mandates that a new name has to 
> appear in a scientific journal in order to be valid.  This is a 
> recommendation, nothing more.
>
>
> Lee Hall 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.
>
>
> See above.  There is nothing in the ICZN Code about a name having to appear 
> in a "legitimate journal" in order for it to be valid.
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Jocelyn Falconnet