> Lisowicia bojani gen. & sp. nov.
Well, that is the question.
The online-early version contains no evidence of having been registered in ZooBank, so the name is not validly published as of right now. Will it be once the print version comes out?
That depends on whether supplementary information to a validly published paper counts as validly published itself. And on that question the ICZN gives no answer.
(extended abstract) itself, without its supplementary information
(paper), will not
suffice to establish the names Lisowicia
or Lisowicia bojani
even when it will appear in print. That is because of Article 16.1: "All names: intention of authors to establish new nominal taxa to be explicit.
Every new name published after 1999, including new replacement names (nomina nova), must be explicitly indicated as intentionally new." http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/includes/page.jsp?article=16&nfv=#1
Neither any abbreviation like "gen. et sp. nov." nor the very words "new", "genus", "species" or "name" occur anywhere in the paper
The supplementary information
fulfills Art. 16.1 and all other criteria I can see, except that it neither contains evidence of having been registered in ZooBank (so that it could count as its own online publication), nor will it be published in print.
I have long meant to write to the Commission (or submit a manuscript to the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature) on this and several other issues (like whether volume, issue and page numbers count as part of "content and layout" for the purposes of Art. 220.127.116.11 and thus 9.9, a question that determines the year
of publication for a whole bunch of names). Once I find a bit of time, I should really do it. I'm hereby inviting coauthors.
That shoulder blade. Fig. 2 (and the supp. inf.
) makes clear it's very different from those of closely related dicynodonts. Instead, it looks very familiar. Does it belong to a dinosaur? Are there seriously large sauropodomorphs in Lisowice?
Page 4 of the supp. inf.
casually states in the description of the site: "There is a smaller proportion of teeth from different archosaurs and fossils of early anurans in the microfossil record (67)." That sentence is the first publication of any Late Triassic total-group frog remains ever (or indeed any between the Early Triassic Triadobatrachus
and the Early Jurassic Prosalirus
), except of course for ref. 67, which is a conference abstract from 2015 accessible only (though freely) on the society's website: http://www.eavp.org/past-meetings/