[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Reinterpretation of Samrukia as a pterosaur
Buffetaut's paper is not an issue, here, because it does not satisfy the
requirements for erecting a new name.
First, the novelty of the family, genus, or species-group name must be
expressed explicitly to validate the erection of such a name (Article
16.1). Buffetaut credits nevertheless Naish, Dyke, Cau, Escuillé and
Godefroit, 2011 - though the paper is still in press, including in the
bibliography - for the authorship of '*Samrukia*' and '*Samrukia nessovi*'.
Second, Buffetaut discards the three purported autapomorphies of
'*Samrukia*', considering it as a possible dubious species. He provides
therefore no diagnosis which would have supported the validation of the
taxon. Providing a diagnosis is not the only mean to do so, as a
bibliographic reference might to the trick, but his conclusions are
against the validity of '*Samrukia*' (Article 13).
Anyway, I do agree that this is a pretty confusing situation. Luckily,
the princeps description will issue before Buffetaut's comment.
By the way, it seems to me that this comment is pretty well documented
and includes striking comparisons between the holotype of '*Samrukia*'
and pterosaur mandibular material (*Santanadactylus*, undeterminate
pterodactyloid from Austria).
Le 15/11/2011 18:50, Matthew Martyniuk a écrit :
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 12:44 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org<email@example.com> wrote:
From: Ben Creisler
If the Buffetaut article officially comes out first in print (likely in
2012), I think the name could be cited as:
Samrukia Naish, Dyke, Cau, Escuillié, and Godefroit in Buffetaut, 2012
That does looks like it would be the case:
ICZN Article 50. Authors of names and nomenclatural acts.
50.1. Identity of authors. The author of a name or nomenclatural act
is the person who first publishes it [Arts. 8, 11] in a way that
satisfies the criteria of availability [Arts. 10 to 20] (but for
certain names published in synonymy see Article 50.7). If a work is by
more than one person but it is clear from the contents that only one
of these is responsible for the name or act, then that person is the
author; otherwise the author of the work is deemed to be the author of
the name or act. If the author, or the person who publishes the work,
cannot be determined from the contents, then the name or act is deemed
to be anonymous (see Article 14 for the availability of anonymous
names and nomenclatural acts).
50.1.1. However, if it is clear from the contents that some person
other than an author of the work is alone responsible both for the
name or act and for satisfying the criteria of availability other than
actual publication, then that other person is the author of the name
or act. If the identity of that other person is not explicit in the
work itself, then the author is deemed to be the person who publishes
"/As a Professor of Science, I assure you we did in fact evolve from
filthy monkey men./" Hubert J. Farnworth.