Re: Abyssal's official pterosaur question thread

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

Whole post repeated because it lacked line breaks:

> Taking another look at the 'Paranurognathus' article I discovered two 
> spellings of the species epithet. The first is seen in a caption of a 
> figure and is 'P. tischlingeri' but the next mention, which is the only 
> mention in the text proper is 'P. tichlingeri'. What's the opinion on 
> 'proper' spellings of nomina nuda. If I include 'P. tischlingeri' in a 
> list should I also include 'P. tichlingeri' because as it has not been 
> properly described it cannot have a correct spelling, or should I only 
> include the first instance of the name? Which is it then? The first in the 
> text, or can captions count?

Are you sure it isn't properly described? If there's a specimen number, a 
description, and not much else, it's properly described, because Paleo-Times 
certainly counts as published.

If it is properly described, and if your list could ever count as properly 
published, you'll have to play First Reviser, which means you get to choose 
the correct spelling; and in that case PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE choose *P. 
tischlingeri*, because the man is actually called Tischlinger, and omitting 
the s would even change the pronunciation.