[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



Mickey Mortimer wrote:

Honestly, the flouting of the  ICZN isn't my biggest worry. As you
> say, none of us uses Deinodontidae (though we should!).

Aren't Deinodontidae and Atlantosauridae nomina oblita? If not, I'm sure a petition to suppress them (and Ornithodesmidae) would quickly be successful.

What's concerning is that  instead of honestly mentioning
> Omnivoropteryx and saying the authors prefer to ignore it and its
> family due to ethical issues regarding its import into the US, they
> pretend it doesn't exist. Let that sink in- scientists are
> purposefully excluding information from their paper, with the
> apparent hope people will ignore or never learn about history. Gao
> et al. state "To date, the clade is known from fewer than a dozen
> published specimens and four species." If we're right in thinking
> the authors know about Omnivoropteryx (basically a certainty),
> realize it is valid according to the ICZN (there's absolutely no
> reason it wouldn't be) and realize it falls within their
> Sapeornithidae (also a near certainty), that's a LIE. Whoever wrote
> that sentence- Chiappe, Gao, or whoever is near certainly a LIAR.
> And whoever among the authors and reviewers read that sentence and
> knew about Omnivoropteryx being related allowed a lie into the
> published literature.
>
> Are you truly comfortable with scientists lying in the published
> literature?

I'm not sure they realize *Omnivoropteryx* is valid according to the ICZN. Lots of people, including professionals who have named taxa before, have loopy ideas about what the ICZN actually says. Some of those are very widespread; all the time I encounter people who believe in page and line priority...

This is, of course, strongly encouraged by the fact that the ICZN is long, convoluted, and assumes more or less basic concepts instead of ever explaining them; it is therefore hard to read. Few people have read most or all of it. In fact, it's so convoluted that I once discovered a probable contradiction in it (during a discussion on this list; I forgot what exactly, but some kind of spelling apparently must and must not be emended at the same time).

I haven't read all of it, and I don't remember everything I've read (again, the length and convulsion make that more difficult). Is the type specimen of *Omnivoropteryx* in a publicly accessible repository? I'll look up if that's necessary.

<sigh> Years ago, someone sat down and rewrote the entire International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (soon: Prokaryotes) to make it legible. The Commission immediately adopted his version; it is indeed a wonder of clarity.

...Speaking of the ICZN... Jaime, I haven't forgotten our discussion about *Jeholornis primus*, I just haven't found enough time yet. Just so much: "prima" cannot be a noun in apposition, _because it isn't a noun_. It's an ordinal number, and those work exactly like adjectives (indeed, the distinction is artificial for Indo-European languages), agreeing with the noun they refer to in gender, number and case. The whole thing just means "the first *Jeholornis*".