[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Proceedings of the "Quatrième sympos
jaime Headden wrote-
> This definition does not occur
> under any published code of
> nomenclature in
> which the taxa listed can be covered. The ICZN does
> have a definition for "nomen dubium,"
> but it is a lot shorter:
> "nomen dubium (pl. nomina dubia),
> n.A Latin term meaning "a name of unknown
> or doubtful application"."
Fair enough, but in what sense is a junior synonym unknown or doubtful if it's
a junior synonym? Norman's Table 1 really illustrates the problems. On the
left it's supposed to show the low number of names he and McDonald us while on
the right are the large number of names used by Paul and Carpenter and Ishida.
But really it's just on the left the names he wants to keep, and on the right
the names he wants to sink. E.g. Vectisaurus is a nomen dubium impossibly also
a synonym of Mantellisaurus, but there was never an ICZN opinion saying
Mantellisaurus is valid.