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

RE: Foraminacephale gen. nov.



Mike Taylor wrote:

<I'm never sure how I feel about this. Even given that a dissertation, however 
freely available and widely copied, does not count as "published" for ICZN 
purposes, doesn't Schott's naming this animal in a thesis and making it freely 
available at least constitute a good, solid marker in the ground?>

  I was working on preparing a larger response to the last time "legitimate 
source" was debated on this list, especially with Mike Taylor, and I felt I had 
a slam-dunk response to the idea that dissertations could be used for citation. 
This seems like a good time to bring it up:

  Everyone who prepares a thesis does so for two reasons: to show one's work 
(that he can do this thing) or, as in the case of parts of both Schott's MSc, 
Robins' thesis describing two new pterosauromorphans, Taylor's  AND J. Ignacio 
Ruiz-Omeñaca's thesis, as a preparatory work for THEN publishing elsewhere. In 
specific, Ryan Schott notes that Chapter 2 is from a multi-authored manuscript. 
It is, in fact, Schott et al. which I mentioned here: 
http://qilong.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/when-flat-head-met-dome-y/ . This is 
(generally) what theses are done for: larger scientific works that are 
eventually split up and published in various forms (even Ralph Molnar hasn't 
published _all_ of his thesis, to my knowledge, we all await for Dan Chure's to 
get into available print since it has an oft-tossed name we'd like to use); it 
is those later works which are considered "available."

  It would be odd to then consider that I should cite both Gauthier's 1984 PhD 
thesis and his published 1986 work for the same data; if the 1984 date is 
earlier, we should use that, unless the 1986 date includes specific information 
which we chose to addend to the former; the same is true of Rauhut's PhD thesis 
and 200 page monster published in 2003.

<Really, what is the downside of putting a name out there as a nomen nudum 
before formal publication?>

  As I know you are aware, a nomen nudum has no standing anywhere, whatsoever. 
Ostensibly, "putting a marker in the ground" is done at SVP and SVPCA and 
various other conferences, abstract volumes, co-authors, word of mouth. When 
people are close-mouthed, contrite, and unwilling to discuss or disclose, 
"putting a marker in the ground" becomes more like lions allowing the hyenas to 
steal from the kill because it's "public." This doesn't solve the problem that 
according to the ICZN, which does not prevent authors from "scooping" one 
another, the name is available from the point of it being legitimately 
published in a non-proscribed format.

  But in answer to your question, yes: If Jeff Martz had publicized the thesis, 
it is likely that he would not have been "alledgedly" knowlingly pre-empted. 
When data is fully public, then we can all freely have access to it. 
Problematically, this will not stop people from publishing on that data. To 
that end, I would ask people not to name taxa in non-legitimate formats, theses 
or otherwise. This _stops_ the issue in its tracks. Only the available data 
becomes an issue, and the conclusions, which are now public with clear dates 
and attributions. This doesn't work when people clutch to, but cite, their 
theses, or cite material that they are currently still working on, etc. The 
biggest problem with this last issue is Jarvik's possession of what is 
considered fantastic *Ichthyostega* material, or White's nearly exclusive 
access to several apith fossils, or Bakker's possession of the type of *Drinker 
nistii*.

  Thus if anyone does start using that data and conclusions, they can cite the 
work, which is available. Making digital copies available from all 
universities, which otherwise never profit from this work anyway can only 
increase the available data we can have, and that's all to the good. Authors 
can then add special notes to the systematic sections where they would name a 
taxon:

  "I intend to provide taxonomic nomenclature for the specimens mentioned in 
this section. Other authors are requested to refrain from using this material 
as the basis of nomenclature until such a time as I declare I no longer intend 
to provide taxonomy."

  This places a "hold" on the taxonomy possible, and it becomes an issue of 
ethics afterward. The ability of societies and universities (or the willingness 
in some cases) to censure violators either financially or standing-wise 
(revocation of membership, privileges, etc., including reimbursement of 
supplied annual dues for that period, etc.).

  If you agree with this, Mike, then you and I are on the same page in regards 
to dealing with theses.

Cheers,

  Jaime A. Headden
  The Bite Stuff (site v2)
  http://qilong.wordpress.com/

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)


"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion 
Backs)


----------------------------------------
> From: mike@indexdata.com
> Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 12:47:47 +0100
> Subject: Re: Foraminacephale gen. nov.
> To: jigruiz@gmail.com
> CC: dinosaur@usc.edu; qi_leong@hotmail.com
>
> On 29 July 2011 12:42, Jose Ignacio Ruiz-Omeñaca <jigruiz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > To avoid nomina nuda, I recommend to disclaim the new taxa made in a
> > dissertation, by expliciting it in the printed volume, acording to the
> > International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Chapter 3, Article 8:
> > 8.2 and 8.3
> >
> > http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/
> >
> > I made this in my PhD thesis
>
> I'm never sure how I feel about this. Even given that a dissertation,
> however freely available and widely copied, does not count as
> "published" for ICZN purposes, doesn't Schott's naming this animal in
> a thesis and making it freely available at least constitute a good,
> solid marker in the ground? It's notice of intent to publish, and
> should warn off anyone who had been considering naming the same
> animal. (Not that this helped, Heliocanthus, of course, but that was
> an exceptional case.)
>
> Really, what is the downside of putting a name out there as a nomen
> nudum before formal publication? I am not sure I can see one, other
> than that it's "not done". Which is not a particularly compelling
> argument.
>
> -- Mike.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > J. Ignacio
> >
> >
> >
> >> Note that this is a thesis, and this provided name is not technically 
> >> published, or recognized otherwise by the ICZN. Just getting that out 
> >> there.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>  Jaime A. Headden
> >
> >
> >>> via http://www.mesozoico.com.ar
> >>>
> >>> Schott, R.K. 2011. Ontogeny, diversity, and systematics of
> >>> pachycephalosaur dinosaurs from the Belly River Group of Alberta.
> >>> Master of Science thesis. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary
> >>> Biology University of Toronto, 173 pp.
> >>>
> >>> https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/27360
> >>>
> >>> Includes a new genus: Foraminacephale gen. nov., with a single species
> >>> Foraminacephale brevis (Lambe 1918)
> >>>
> >>> -------------------------------------------
> >>> Jose Ignacio Ruiz-Omenaca
> >>> Museo del Jurasico de Asturias (MUJA)
> >>> E-33328 Colunga, Spain
> >>> www.dinoastur.com
> >>> www.museojurasicoasturias.com
> >>> www.aragosaurus.com
> >>> -------------------------------------------
> >
> >