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

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



>>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.

The problem is who is to decide what constitutes valid peer review?
If you send the manuscript to one or two paleontologists who may not
be subject experts, is this as valid a review as sending it to two
persons who have published extensively on the subject?  What if they
have published extensively, but their views are not held by most in
the field, does their review still count as "valid" for the purposes
of the IZCN?  I agree this needs to be done but it is a very slippery
slope.

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Tim Williams <tijawi@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> not.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim