[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: tiny-armed theropods
Am 12.10.2011 15:11, schrieb Mike Taylor:
On 12 October 2011 14:07, Matthew Martyniuk <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Except that the ICZN doesn't govern any names above family level.
True enough. In point of fact there seems to be NO code that
governs the non-PN use of name such as Therizinosauria. Still,
tradition treats them AS THOUGH they were governed by the ICZN.
Well, sort of. The ICZN does govern such things as the spelling. It's
just that priority does not apply above the ranks of the family group.
It applies to Therizinosauroidea (a superfamily), but neither to
Therizinosauria nor to Segnosauria.
> It seems odd that a code would explicitly reject precedence of name
> over precedence of definition. What's to stop a huge land rush to
> supplant existing names and trump centuries old author priority in
> favor of ones self?
The PhyloCode's rules for citing a name say to give the name of the
nominal author, not that of the definitional author. So after the
PhyloCode companion volume FINALLY comes out with its phylogenetic
definition of Sauropoda, it will still be Sauropoda Marsh 1878, not
Sauropoda Taylor et al. 200x (for some value of x > 10). This is as
it should be, of course.
Nevertheness, there is some fear of a PhyloCode land-rush. I don't
see it happening, though: everyone knows the difference between
properly worked definitions and land-grabs, and no-one would do
their reputation any good with the latter.
And, very importantly, _peer review_ is _*REQUIRED*_ for valid
publication of nomenclatural acts under the PhyloCode. If you submit
crap, there's a chance the reviewers will catch it long before it could
cause any trouble.
Article 4.2: "Publication, under this code, is defined as distribution
of text (but not sound), with or without images. To qualify as
published, works must be peer-reviewed [...]"
Note 4.2.1: "If an entire book is not peer-reviewed or a periodical is
not consistently peer-reviewed, the article or chapter in which a name
or nomenclatural act appears must be peer-reviewed in order to qualify
Note 4.2.2: "Approval of a work by a thesis or dissertation committee
does not constitute peer review."