[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Reinterpretation of Samrukia as a pterosaur
I'm not sure the issues will assuredly publish in order to be consistent. Are
the submission to print times consistent between _Biology Letters_ vs. _Annales
The problem I see here is that a note is being submitted rejecting the
conclusions of a work _that isn't published_ and is noted specifically so. The
only way to ensure the timeliness of these is to withhold the publication of
the latter note to ensure the former is published on time. At which point the
citation in the latter is off. How problematic would it have been to wait for
the original descriptive note to be published before submission? Moreover, the
online "openness" of the submissions and edited papers prior to print gives the
illusion that the work is available, when in fact it isn't. The need for high
media coverage before the fact, the prevalence of coverage before the fact, and
the increasing number of works published online prior to print confuse this
issue, and I do not think it will be solved until at least "online before
print" stops for works like this (taxonomic or otherwise) or online print is
considered as valuable and authoritative as print (even though the latter is
treated this way by the media presentation of either news organizations or the
Jaime A. Headden
The Bite Stuff (site v2)
"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion
> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:57:42 +0100
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: email@example.com
> CC: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
> Subject: 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).
> Jocelyn Falconnet
> 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
> >> firstname.lastname@example.org
> >> 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
> > the work.
> > Matt
> "/As a Professor of Science, I assure you we did in fact evolve from
> filthy monkey men./" Hubert J. Farnworth.