Re: Protoavis

[Stan Friesen <swf@ElSegundoCA.NCR.COM>]

>From: Chris Nedin <cnedin@geology.adelaide.edu.au>
 > One question here. Since Chatterjee has already described the skull in
 > peer-review, would that not mean that the skull must retain the name
 > "Protoavis" and only by proving an association between other body parts and
 > the skull could you assign the name "Protoavis" to those body parts? Rather
 > than the first revisor arbitrarily assigning the name to any body part.
 > 

This depends on how Chatterjee specified the type specimen in the
article.  If he listed the entire skeleton, as he believed it to
be, then the whole is the type specimen, even if he didn't fully
describe the rest.  (Actually, the article I have does figure
the entire skeleton, even if the most detailed treatment is given
to the skull).

Now, if he specified only one piece as the type specimen, then that
piece bears the name, and the first reviser can do nothing about it.

The critical spot in the article is the section *right* after he
states his intent to name a new species (using the formula
"Protoavis xxxxx n. gen, n. sp.").  At this point there is a
paragraph that specifies the type specimen.  Whatever is listed
there is the type specimen, and if *that* list contains material
from more than one organism, then the first reviser can attach the
name to any subset of that particular list.  Any specimens or pieces
mentioned or listed elsewhere in the article are considered part of
the "type series", but not of the type itself.

[Indeed, a new species can be named officially just with the few
paragraphs following the formula - the more detailed description
is not necessary: the critical parts are the specification of the
name, the specification of the type, and the differential diagnosis,
which last need only contrast it with other similar forms]

swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com         sarima@netcom.com

The peace of God be with you.