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

Re: Phylocode, was tiny-armed theropods



On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Anthony Docimo <keenir@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>  If I recall correctly, one of the problems presently and historically, was
> that a number of fossils either aren't published as soon as possible, or
> they're published in small scientific journals.   (does the Registration
> Database keep an eye on all the, say, Albanian-language paleontology
> journals?)

The database (or its administrators) don't keep an eye on the
literature. It is the *authors'* responsibility to register names. See
Art. 8: http://www.ohio.edu/phylocode/art8.html

Unlike the ICZN and the ICBN, publication alone is not enough for a
name to be established under the PhyloCode -- names must be published
*and* registered.

> National Geographic (or Science) Channel the other day, mentioned a Ground
> Sloth which was found by some (post)-graduates...and it was at least ten
> years before the fossil even came to the attention of local museums, much
> less the wider scientific community.  Wouldn't those bones also fall through
> the cracks of a mandatory database?*

RegNum only stores clade names and data associated with them
(citations, definitions, etc.). It's not a specimen database (except
insofar as specimens may be used in clade definitions). And it's not
for naming species, only for naming clades.

-- 
T. Michael Keesey
http://tmkeesey.net/