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

RE: Publication and the Code

Michael Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> wrote:

> I agree since it's electronic and has no indication of
> being deposited in libraries, the paper does not meet ICZN
> standards. 

Nevertheless, as I wrote previously (in a part of the message that was deleted 
by the SNIP demon):

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 that hard copies have been made, or can be made.

> 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. 

I'm not saying that the specimen should be ignored.  I'm saying that the name 
should be ignored.  Which is essentially what you are advocating, when you call 
'Amphicoelias brontodiplodocus' a nomen nudum.