[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
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...