[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: [dinosaur] is Lisowicia an available name?
Just off the top of my head, a fair number of other taxa have been
described in the pages of _Science_ (and a few in _Nature_, but the
policy may have changed for this reason) that shunted the diagnostic
and technical elements of nomenclature into the supplemental data. The
practice of doing so leaves a lot of technical literature into what is
not always peer-reviewed in the final paper, but may have been in the
main paper in a previous round of review or prior submission. Some of
these papers include additional nomenclature of taxa in the
supplemental data. I cannot recall off the top of my head which papers
specifically show this, but there was some concern expressed in this
forum regarding them at the time. The general argument at the time was
the supplemental data is part of the paper and as such the taxa are
treated as valid.
On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 4:29 AM email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On the wave of recent discussions concerning the availabilty of names and
> current nomenclature practice, I'd like to ask: if _Lisowicia_ and _L.
> bojani_ are available names? The expressions "gen. nov." and "sp. nov.",
> holotype designation, diagnosis and etymology are all in the supporting
> online materials for the paper in Science, but not in the paper itself.
> Best, Dawid
Jaime A. Headden
The Bite Stuff:
"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth" - P. B. Medawar (1969)