[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Publication and the Code
Dan Chure <email@example.com> wrote:
> So how to deal with this kind of "nomenclature"? To
> treat it as a nomen
> dubium, as some have suggested, is to give it more credence
> than it
> deserves because it gives the specimen and name the cache
> that it is a
> serious scientific taxonomic action.
Not a 'nomen dubium' - this would mean that the name is valid, even if the
holotype specimen is non-diagnostic. Instead, we should treat 'Amphicoelias
brontodiplodocus' as a 'nomen nudum' - this would that the name has no
scientific standing whatsoever. Therefore, the 'name' should not be used at
> The name should be simply IGNORED. Do not discuss the
> name, list it as a synonym or nomen dubium, etc. Do NOT
> acknowledge its existence. If you must, refer to the specimen
> by its specimen number. Anything more than that will only
> cause greater problems for systematics and nomenclature.
I absolutely agree. One-hundred per cent. Ignoring a nomen nudum should be
the standard policy for any nomen nudum. Avoid them like the plague.
Nomina nuda have the potential to cause a great deal of trouble, because they
can be mistaken for real scientific names. We only have to look at the
'Ultrasaurus' example from the 1980's to realize the kind of mayhem a nomen
nudum can cause.
> If the Code is hoplessly out of date I don't see that the
> scientific community is eternally obligated to walk down
> the path to madness because of a fundamentally flawed system
> unwilling to correct its problems.
Well said, and I agree wholeheartedly. The ICZN seems to want to turn a blind
eye to rogue taxonomy, so it's up to those at the coalface of science to 'keep
the bastards honest'.