[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Reinterpretation of Samrukia as a pterosaur

I agree with you Jocelyn.  _Samrukia_ is a nomen nudum, until such
time as the description (and naming) of _Samrukia_ by Naish et al. is
formally published.  There is no reason why Buffetaut would (or could)
get credit for naming _Samrukia_, given that Buffetaut explicitly
cites Naish et al..

This sort of thing is not unprecedented.  There have been times in the
past when a genus name has first appeared in one paper before it was
officially published in another paper, which is cited by the first
paper.  For example, the titanosaur genus _Isisaurus_ first appeared
in the description of the abelisaurid _Rajasaurus_ by Wilson et al.
(2003).  The latter cited Wilson and Upchurch (2003) for _Isisaurus_,
and the paper was given as "in press" in the Literature Cited.



Jocelyn Falconnet <j.falconnet@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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).
> Cheers,
> Jocelyn Falconnet
> Le 15/11/2011 18:50, Matthew Martyniuk a écrit :
>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 12:44 PM, bh480@scn.org<bh480@scn.org>  wrote:
>>> From: Ben Creisler
>>> bh480@scn.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.