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

Re: Is *Duriatitan* published? was Re: Is *Duriasaurus* published? was Re: Andesaurus redescribed

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 3:26 AM, David Marjanovic
<david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote:

> No, it seems I was just barely awake enough to not confuse *Duriatitan* with
> *Duriavenator*.
> I guess reading the ICZN first thing in the morning makes me tired :-)

At the end of the day (or even at the beginning) the articles of the
ICZN Code regarding what constitutes a valid publication are so vague
and open to interpretation that they're almost meaningless.  What
really matters is whether or not researchers treat these names as
valid.  In other words, a 'community standard' applies among

For example, I don't believe _Gigantspinosaurus_ met the strict letter
of the Code, given that Ouyeng (1992) doesn't appear to conform to
Article 9 (see provision 9.9 regarding publications limited to
attendees of a symposium).  Yet, despite this, paleontologists appear
to have taken the name on board as a valid genus.  So
_Gigantspinosaurus_ got a thumbs up.

On the other hand, Stephan Pickering's proposed 'genera' and 'species'
(e.g., "Walkersaurus", "Tyrannosaurus stanwinstonorum"), which were
coined in a series of self-published works in the mid-90's, have been
universally ignored by paleontologists. They are therefore nomina
nuda.  In fact, "Walkersaurus" was a name proposed by Pickering for
_Megalosaurus hesperis_, which was recently assigned by Benson (2008)
to the new genus _Duriavenator_.  Thus, "Walkersaurus" got a thumbs