[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Having your ideas published without attribution, and having your names with priority ignored
The "Dinosaur Muscuem Journal," volume "1", not being some sort of "good"
journal is irrelevant. Zoology has seen worse crap get "published", and later
recognized despite the questionability of it medium. The ICZN doesn't care. I
argue that the book should be accepted, regardless of any technical or ...
well, other issues it may have. There has been a systematic ignorance of this
work in recent literature: ignoring *Scansoriopteryx heilmannii,*
*Omnivoropteryx sinousaorum,* whatever. Bennett published a review on
*Utahdactylus katae* (2007:
in the very journal Gao et al. appears in. The editors are not afraid to
mention the taxa, authors should not themselves be afraid to use the
nomenclature, especially if it is their intention to sink it: *Cryptovolans
pauli* into *Microraptor zhaoianus* (especially now that *gui* into *zhaoianus*
has been formally qualified by Turner et al.), *Omnivoropteryx sinousaorum*
into *Sapeornis chaoyangensis*. I don't care what name actually gets used for a
And you shouldn't care. Rather, you should, but for this reason: If you name
a taxon, what should prevent me from ignoring YOURS?
Stop playing politics, and cite the effing book.
Jaime A. Headden
The Bite Stuff (site v2)
"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion
> Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:22:22 +1000
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Having your ideas published without attribution, and having your
> names with priority ignored
> Mickey Mortimer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > So, Gao et al. have a paper out in the new JVP issue with the major
> > conclusion "Examination of the characters used to diagnose other named
> > sapeornithid
> > species reveals that such diagnoses have incorporated morphologies that are
> > influenced by either taphonomy or ontogeny. Based on qualitative and
> > quantitative
> > comparisons between the new specimen and other sapeornithid species, we
> > argue that all other named sapeornithids are junior synonyms of S.
> > chaoyangensis."
> > Does that sound familiar to anyone? Moreover they are the latest and one
> > the most egregious examples of workers utterly ignoring Omnivoropteryx and
> > Omnivoropterygidae, the latter of which has four years priority over
> > Sapeornithidae. More here-
> > http://theropoddatabase.blogspot.com/2012/08/having-your-ideas-
> > published-without.html . Thoughts?
> Well, since you ask... ;-)
> On using Sapeornithidae in preference to Omnivoropterygidae... Fine by
> me. The original description of _Omnivoropteryx_ was crap, and
> appeared in a crap "journal". Above all, the circumstances
> surrounding the description of this fossil have profound ethical
> concerns. I'd prefer that the name (and namers) not be rewarded by
> having "Omnivoropterygidae" perpetuated any further. So I'm happy to
> see Sapeornithidae gain traction as the preferred family-level name,
> and Omnivoropterygidae consigned to oblivion.
> All this might be in technical violation of the ICZN. BFD. The ICZN
> rules regarding the priority of family-level named are set aside all
> the time. We use Deinodontidae instead of Tyrannosauridae, even
> though the former has priority (says the ICZN). We also use
> Dromaeosauridae instead of Ornithodesmidae (ditto), and Diplodocidae
> instead of Atlantosauridae (again, ditto). Tyrannosauridae,
> Dromaeosauridae and Diplodocidae are all used for convenience, and for
> the sake of stability - in defiance of what family names the ICZN says
> we *should* use. I'm happy to have ICZN govern the priority of genera
> and species, but anything higher (such as family-level names) should
> be turned over to phylogenetic taxonomy. When it comes to
> family-level names, the ICZN is about as useful as a chocolate teapot.
> If researchers want to use Sapeornithidae instead of
> Omnivoropterygidae based on personal (and professional) preference,
> then so be it. Nomenclature should serve scientific endeavor, not the
> other way around. I'm calling bullshit on this priority-at-all-cost
> rationale of the ICZN for family names. If a family name is
> well-established, then stick with it. Sapeornithidae is
> well-established. Tough titties for Omnivoropterygidae.
> So yeah, those are my thoughts. :-)