[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Andesaurus redescribed
Duriatitan has been published now; however, the "in press" bit of the
citation must have accidentally got left in at the proof stage. Hope that
clears things up.
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Brad McFeeters
> <email@example.com> wrote:
>> *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.
Dr. Philip Mannion
Department of Earth Sciences
University College London