Re: Protoavis

[cnedin@geology.adelaide.edu.au (Chris Nedin)]

Stan Frieson wrote:

>Oh, by the way, there is *one* way to "get rid" of the name
>of Protoavis.
>
>*If* the specimens turn out to be chimeras, then the first person
>to write a detailed paper on the issue (called the "first reviser")
>can decide which piece of the composite gets to hold the name
>Protoavis.  *If*, in addition, one of the portions of the composite
>is some organism that is already named, the first reviser could
>attach the name Protoavis to that piece, thus sinking Protoavis
>as a junior synonym of the already named organism.

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.

Chris