Re: Abyssal's official pterosaur question thread

[mhanson54@comcast.net (Mike Hanson)]

There is sort of a diagnosis but it doesn't have a specimen number, all that is 
mentioned is it is privately owned by Tischlinger.

David Marjanovic wrote:
> 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.
>