Misrepresenting references to support ICZN petitions

[Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>]

You all know I dislike the trend to ignore fragmentary types and petition the 
ICZN to make newer specimens neotypes without much study.  But what if that 
study of the original types has been done, the types were found to be 
diagnostic, and the authors of that very study petitioned the ICZN to establish 
a neotype?  And in that petition, the authors cited their own study, but as 
evidence the original types were undiagnostic, contradicting the results of the 
study itself?  Note having an undiagnostic original type is necessary for the 
ICZN to designate a neotype in this situation (Article 75.5).  This happened in 
the case of Carrano et al. (2009) for Majungasaurus, and with no Comments, the 
ICZN decided in their favor to change the type from a specimen Carrano's group 
found to be diagnostic (tooth FSL 92.306a) to another specimen (dentary 
MNHN.MAJ 1).  Full details here- 
http://theropoddatabase.blogspot.com/2014/12/neotyping-past-diagnostic-syntype.html

This combined with the recent errors in Paul and Carpenter's (2010) Allosaurus 
petition (wrong type material, Hypsirhophus presented as having theropod 
material, etc.) that had to be corrected by an amateur referencing my website 
makes me think there needs to be a better review of facts before petitions are 
accepted and voted on.

Mickey Mortimer