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

RE: Andesaurus redescribed



  I think the breadth of circulation have never been quantified, only that it 
is, and "well known" allows people to cite it. I'd suspect that concordant 
publicity and name recognition and authors passing around reprints does this. 
And WHAMMMO! ICZN validates the publication.

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)





----------------------------------------
> Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 23:43:11 +0100
> From: david.marjanovic@gmx.at
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Andesaurus redescribed
>
> > [...] 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.
>
> Isn't this the kind of thing that puts traditional publishing of
> scientific papers ad absurdum and then heaps mockery on it?
>
> I mean, is anybody seriously expected to get that article by any other
> means than asking the authors for a pdf or reprint? Will anybody buy
> that journal for that article? Will anybody outside of Dorset even be
> able to find it in a library and take a photocopy? Will the Dorset
> Natural History and Archaeological Society make a single penny from it,
> let alone break even?
>
> I guess the Proceedings don't have page charges for authors, while the
> PLoS journals charge a lot. I further guess the Proceedings are
> circulated just widely enough to count as published for the ICZN...