[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Andesaurus redescribed
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Brad McFeeters
> *Duriatitan* isn't a nomen nudum, just relatively obscure. The full citation
> has been on Wikipedia for a few months (there doesn't seem to have an
> electronic version of the
> actual paper, unfortunately). Barrett, PM, RJB Benson & P Upchurch, 2010.
> Dinosaurs of Dorset: Part II, the sauropod dinosaurs (Saurischia, Sauropoda)
> with additional
> comments on the theropods. Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and
> Archaeological Society 131: 113–126.
This isn't attack on Wikipedia, but simply because Wikipedia has an
article on it (a stub), does not automatically mean it's been
officially published. Wikipedia has presented nomina nuda as valid
genera in the past.
The relative obscurity of the publication in question means that it's
not a simple matter to verify that _Duriatitan_ has been officially
published yet. To be clear, I'm not claiming that it hasn't; merely
that the nature of the publication means that it cannot be assumed
that the paper has appeared in print, or is still "in press". That's
why I was hesitant in mentioning the name _Duriatitan_. I don't doubt
that the publication (Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and
Archaeological Society) meets ICZN standards, but I haven't yet seen
the actual paper to know if it's actually been published yet.