[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Aurorazhdarcho, new azhdarchoid pterosaur from Late Jurassic, Germany
David Marjanovic <email@example.com> wrote:
> Exactly. Google doesn't know a "*Protazhdarcho*". Three possibilities:
> -- *Protazhdarcho* is named in the paper, and the contents of the paper
> somehow haven't made it to Google yet. In that case it's surprising it's not
> mentioned in the abstract.
> -- Protazhdarchidae isn't intended to be a family, except, uh, except the
> abstract explicitly says it is.
> -- Protazhdarchidae is a failure of peer review. A rather surprising one,
That last one would seem to be a given. :-(
The authors give the impression that they erected a new "family" to
emphasize the primitive nature of _Aurorazhdarcho_ compared to the
Azhdarchidae. In their words:
"Because these features are different from the known
configuration in Azhdarchidae, we propose to erect a new
family, the Protazhdarchidae, because most of the diagnostic
features of Aurorazhdarcho reflect an early state of
evolution within the azhdarchoid construction."
But they forgot (or didn't know, or ignored) the requirement that a
family has to be named after a genus it contains. Was the genus
_Aurorazhdarcho_ originally intended to be named Protoazhdarcho? The
same way that Calvadosaurus was re-named _Dubreuillosaurus_ during the
pre-publication process. Or did the authors of the _Aurorazhdarcho_
paper simply erect a "family" without a name-giving genus?