[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Anchisaurus ICZN petition opposing comment



And they STILL haven't reached an opinion on the totally
straightforward Cetiosaurus petition which was published and 2009 and
has attracted only comments in agreement! Come ON, ICZN, what's the
holdup?

-- Mike.


On 9 July 2012 16:48, Ben Creisler <bcreisler@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Ben Creisler
> bcreisler@gmail.com
>
> The new issue of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature has a
> detailed comment opposing Galton's petition to designate a neotype for
> Anchisaurus. The text of the complete comment is online at the link.
>
>
> Demirjian,  V. (2012)
> Comment on Anchisaurus Marsh, 1885 (Dinosauria, Sauropodomorpha):
> proposed conservation of usage by designation of a neotype for its
> type species Megadactylus polyzelus Hitchcock, 1865.
> Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 69 (2): 141-142
> http://iczn.org/content/comment-anchisaurus-marsh-1885-dinosauria-sauropodomorpha-proposed-conservation-usage-design
>
>
> Also a comment of the Stegosaurus petition:
>
> http://iczn.org/content/comment-stegosaurus-marsh-1877-dinosauria-ornithischia-proposed-replacement-type-species-ste
>