[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: tiny-armed theropods
Am 12.10.2011 15:25, schrieb Matthew Martyniuk:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Mike Taylor <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> 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.
Fair enough, though it will be hard to determine which name has
priority without referring to a secondary source to figure out the
definitional author/date as well. I suppose we'll have to start
citing two authors for every name, so we know "Diplodocoidae Marsh
1884 (Taylor et al. 2012)" has priority over "Atlantosauridae Marsh
1877 (Martyniuk 2013)".
This will be taken care of by registration (Article 8
> 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.
Unless it's inadvertent, and someone defines a name while unaware
that a different name is traditionally used for that group.
This should be taken care of by peer review.
Hopefully the appeals process in the ICPN will be more efficient than
the ICZN ;)
Again registration will help.