[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.

Somebody should definitely sit down and rewrite the whole thing to be legible, as was done with the prokaryote code in 1990. In the process, the ambiguities, contradictions and absurdities should be brought to the Committee's attention.

 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!

Well, you could draft a petition...