[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Vitakridrinda publication validity
It would helpt to establish first if it was ever published as a valid taxon,
first, perhaps. Of course, knowing if it's a real fossil, and what it is, helps
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: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 22:00:59 -0500
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: RE: Vitakridrinda publication validity
> Has the hypothesis of it being a non-fossil rock made it into the literature
> > Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 18:37:53 -0800
> > From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > To: email@example.com
> > Subject: Vitakridrinda publication validity
> > In trying to track down the first valid use of Malkani's rock/abelisaurid
> > Vitakridrinda, I noticed both Malkani (2006) and the Paleobiology Database
> > cite the following reference-
> > Malkani, 2004a. Saurischian Dinosaurs from Late Cretaceous of Pakistan. In
> > Hussain and Akbar (eds.). Fifth Pakistan Geological Congress, 14-15 April,
> > Islamabad, National Geological Society of Pakistan, Pakistan Museum of
> > Natural History (Pakistan Science Foundation), Islamabad. 71-73.
> > Now I don't have this paper (please send if you do!), but I'm wondering if
> > as a three page paper issued for a congress, it runs afoul of ICZN Article
> > 9.9-
> > "abstracts of articles, papers, posters, texts of lectures, and similar
> > material when issued primarily to participants at meetings, symposia,
> > colloquia or congresses."
> > If so, the next available publication may be-
> > Malkani, 2005. Saurischian dinosaurs from the Late Cretaceous Pab Formation
> > of Pakistan. Geological Survey of Pakistan, Information Release. 823, 1-117.
> > Except I don't have that either, and the oh-so-anonymous .docstoc
> > bibliography of Malkani's papers
> > (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15668843/From-first-ever-fossil-found-from-Pakistan-during-early-2000-to-so)
> > lists it as unpublished. As far as I know, only Malkani himself has
> > referenced it, but that's standard for his papers. Can anyone confirm?
> > Finally, if neither of those counts, I can at least say for sure that
> > Malkani (2006) validly names the taxon. ICZN Article 16.1 almost dooms it,
> > since Malkani generally indicates it to be named two years earlier and thus
> > not a new taxon, yet on page 138 in the Conclusions he confusingly says
> > "One genus and species of Abelisaurids Theropod dinosaur Vitakridrinda
> > sulaimani is erected."
> > Malkani, 2006. Biodiversity of saurischian dinosaurs from the Latest
> > Cretaceous park of Pakistan. Journal of Applied and Emerging Sciences.
> > 1(3), 108-140.
> > Thoughts?
> > Mickey Mortimer