[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Vitakridrinda publication validity
Mickey Mortimer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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."
_Gigantspinosaurus_ also runs afoul of Article 9.9. Nevertheless, it
is treated as a valid name, with Ouyang (1992) getting the credit.
The ICZN had nothing to do with the determination of whether
_Gigantspinosaurus_ is a valid name or not. Its validity is a
consequence of whether people in the field treat it as valid or not -
and they do. Thus, the validity is more _de facto_ than _de jure_.
In other words, a community standard applies.