[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: [dinosaur] Origolestes, or the blurry limits of nomenclatural availability



Once more, Science is the opposite of science. *sigh*

-- Mike.


On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 at 15:57, David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote:
Another extended abstract called "paper", of a paper that is called "supplementary information". Well, so far so good.

The "paper" doesn't show any evidence of being registered in ZooBank, and neither, for that matter, does the paper. So far, still so good; this is Science, the print version will probably be out next week.

The trick, as with *Lisowicia*, is that nobody knows if supplementary information to a validly published printed paper is considered validly published by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Back in 2012, when the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature amended the Code to allow electronic publication under certain conditions, it seems not to have considered the existence of supp. inf. at all, so it's nowhere mentioned in the Code. As with *Lisowicia*, almost all the description of *Origolestes* is in the supp. inf..

To be available, a validly published name must be 1) explicitly stated to be new, 2) provided with an explicitly designated type and 3) provided with a diagnosis that is meant to differentiate the taxon the name refers to from everything it could be confused with.

Condition 1 will be fulfilled as soon as the "paper" comes out in print: the second paragraph begins with "*Origolestes lii*, gen. et sp. nov.".

Condition 2 will also fulfilled: the legends to figures 1 and 2 state that "V14383-1" is the holotype. (It is nowhere mentioned what collection that is, but it should be obvious from context, and indeed the supp. inf. says it's the IVPP.)

Condition 3 will not be fulfilled by the "paper" as far as I can tell. There is quite a bit of description of spalacotherioids ("symmetrodonts" in the narrowest sense) generally, but no statement intended to differentiate *Origolestes* from other members of that group. This is in stark contrast to the "supp. inf.", which spends five and a half single-spaced pages on this.

The worst-case scenario is that the "supp. inf." is not considered validly published and the "paper", by failing to contain a diagnosis, does not establish the name. In that case, the name is not available: it does not even compete for priority against later synonyms or homonyms, it's "not even wrong", it simply doesn't officially exist. I really need to steal the time to write to the Commission about this (and a few other issues).

Fun fact: from reading the "paper", you'd think all seven authors of the publication are authors of the name. But the "supp. inf." disagrees, exempting the deceased Li from the authorship of "*Origolestes lii* gen. and sp. nov. Mao, Hu, Wang, Hill-Chase, Smith et Meng"; it adds: "Species name honors professor Chuankui Li for his contributions to the study of early mammals." Page 1 of the "supp. inf." explains why there are two deceased authors (Hu and Li) on the paper: "The first specimen (V13604) was obtained by Yaoming Hu in 2003, and in the following year V14383-1 (the holotype), V14383-2, and V14384 were collected by Chuankui Li from the Lujiatun beds at Shangyuan, Beipiao, Liaoning, China."

Gesendet:ÂDonnerstag, 05. Dezember 2019 um 20:13 Uhr
Von:Â"Ben Creisler" <bcreisler@gmail.com>
Â
A new paper:
Â
Origolestes lii gen. et sp. nov.
Â
Fangyuan Mao, Yaoming Hu, Chuankui Li, Yuanqing Wang, Morgan Hill Chase, Andrew K. Smith & Jin Meng (2019)
Integrated hearing and chewing modules decoupled in a Cretaceous stem therian mammal.
Science: eaay9220 (advance online publication)
DOI: 10.1126/science.aay9220