[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

In other words, the ICZN merely serves to provide the illusion we follow 
objective standards when the reality is basically a popularity contest where 
technically valid names can be ignored.

As an additional example of this I just found out about- Diplodocidae should be 
Atlantosauridae.  Contra Olshevsky (1991), the latter was used as valid since 
1899, so is not a nomen oblitum.  Ditto for Apatosaurinae- should be 
Atlantosaurinae.  But nobody will care, or even petition the ICZN (as would be 
proper to maintain the more recent names), because we know we can 
(collectively) get away with doing what we want without following the rules.  
What a system!

I'd add a sarcastic emoticon, but I'm honestly more disappointed than anything 

Mickey Mortimer

> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 10:13:51 +1100
> From: tijawi@gmail.com
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Is *Duriatitan* published? was Re: Is *Duriasaurus* published? 
> was Re: Andesaurus redescribed
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 3:26 AM, David Marjanovic
>  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
> paleontologists.
> 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
> down.
> Cheers
> Tim