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

Re: Pricesaurus = Anhanguera (Pterosauria) (free pdf)

David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote:

>> "What does not constitute  published work. Notwithstanding the
>> provisions of Article 8, none of the following constitutes published
>> work within the meaning of the Code: ... 9.9. abstracts of articles,
>> papers, posters, texts of lectures, and similar material when issued
>> primarily to participants at meetings, symposia, colloquia or
>> congresses."
> It might become interesting (in a bad way) to figure out what "primarily"
> means. Some abstract volumes are first "issued [...] to participants at
> meetings" but then printed as books that are apparently sold like any other
> book.

My interpretation is that it means whatever you want it to mean.  :-)
 Like so many other ICZN Articles, Article 9.9 is vague and easily
ignored.  For example, there is no way that _Gigantspinosaurus_ Ouyang
1992 would have passed muster if Article 9.9 had been rigidly applied
(the name appeared in the Abstracts of a Youth Academic Symposium in
China).  But in keeping the terms of Article 9.9 vague, the ICZN can
let workers in the field sort out if a particular name is valid or

All this could be resolved if the ICZN only accepted as valid those
names that appear in peer-reviewed scientific journals.  The gray
literature is causing enormous problems for nomenclature.