[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

Jaime Headden <qi_leong@hotmail.com> wrote:

> But what is being used is not a strict application of the Code;

Here's the problem.  When it comes to what constitutes a valid
publication, there can be no strict application of the Code.  This is
because the Code is ambiguous on what constitutes a valid publication.

> Mickey's comments have merit here. Mickey's cynical take on the Code is
> perhaps too light.

Mickey's cynicism was not directed at the Code itself, but at the way
certain people choose to ignore the Code's provisions.

>From my perspective, the Code has outlived its usefulness for
governing the naming of family-level taxa.  If a strict application of
this part of the Code would have us use Deinodontidae instead of
Tyrannosauridae, or Atlantosauridae instead of Diplodocidae, then its
application does more harm than good to the cause of nomenclatural
stability.  So I think it's fine to ignore it.