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

RE: Publication and the Code



I agree since it's electronic and has no indication of being deposited in 
libraries, the paper does not meet ICZN standards.  Thus "brontodiplodocus" is 
a nomen nudum.  As for the specimens being privately owned, the holotype is 
said to be "on public exhibition at the Washakie Museum and Cultral Center, 
Worland Wyoming."  So it seems publically accessable to me.  Not easy to 
examine close up perhaps, but sauropod workers are no strangers to holotypes 
being mounted in museums and hard to get at.  I should also note that the 
authors examined and photographed real specimens like the Diplodocus longus 
holotype, so even if their ideas are crazy, they're at least going through the 
trouble to research in person as opposed to sitting behind their computers.  
Also the material is beautifully illustrated, much better than in many (most?) 
valid descriptions of sauropods.  It should be easy to tell from the photos 
what Amphicoelias "brontodiplodocus" is.  I think ignoring the material helps 
no one.  The specimens exist and science isn't like a court case where some 
evidence is inadmissable.

Mickey Mortimer

----------------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 00:37:35 +0100
> From: mike@indexdata.com
> To: danchure@easilink.com
> CC: VRTPALEO@usc.edu; dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Publication and the Code
>
> On 7 October 2010 00:14, Dan Chure  wrote:
> >  I am reposting this because it might easily have been missed in a flurry of
> > posts about an Allosaurus specimen for sale.  However, this is of much
> > broader import that the Allosaurus specimen.
> >
> > Tom Holtz posted this link:
> >
> > http://dinosauriainternational.com/downloads/Amphicoelias.pdf
>
> This paper proposes an extraordinary hypothesis -- that ALL Morrison
> diplodocoids are congeneric -- and that requires extraordinary
> evidence. But because the alleged evidence is all in privately owned
> specimens, it can't be verified. In effect, there is no verifiable
> evidence for the hypothesis. Add to this that the paper is privately
> published, that it was not peer-reviewed, and that it suffers from
> mechanical errors that do not speak well of its authors' competence
> (such as a bibliography consisting mostly of papers that are never
> cited), I think the best thing we can do is just ignore it. When the
> specimens in question reside in a properly curated, publicly
> accessible collection, and are published on in a peer-reviewed paper
> in respected venue, then we'll be in a position to judge what the
> taxonomic consequences, if any, of the new specimens are.
>
> (This is a shame, since the material is sensational and there are
> plenty of gorgeous photographs in the paper.)
>
> -- Mike.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > 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.  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.  Nevertheless, I thought
> > that it would be useful for members of these list to be aware of this
> > publication and its implications.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> >