Re: Olshevsky and the ICZN (long)

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

>From: VED00656@niftyserve.or.jp> >requirement?
 > (iii) ...Yes. He proposed "Jenghizkhan bataar" .

Oops, that is enough to make the name available, that is
to make it "officially published".
 > 
 > "Jenghizkhan bataar" is only Olshevsky's opinion. I couldn't tell enough
 > about it in my previous mail. I think if he want to use "Jenghizkhan 
 > bataar" in future, he must rename it with "scientific" procedure, whether
 > Olshevsky's opinion accept in paleontology or not.

No, it is now officially published, it can be used anytime
anybody wants.   More than that, anybody that seperates the
species T. bataar into a genus distinct from both T. rex and
the type species of Tarbosaurus is probably *required* to use
this name.

Now, as to anybody else will accepting his opinion that it
represents a distinct genus, that would require much more evidence.

Unfortunately, I must now enter the name in as a junior synonym
of Tyrannosaurus in my dinosaur species list. 
 > 
 > Is there International organization which deal with zoological nomenclature?
 > He proposed some new dinosaur names. Did you know he had been proposed
 > his "new" name such a organization or not?

Yes there is, and they created the rules you cited.  However,
they do not judge the value of taxonomic names, only their
usability and validity.

Thus they will not address the issue of whether Jenghizkhan is
really distinct or not.  Furthermore, since the letter of the
rules was met by the publication, they will almost certainly
take no action regarding the availability (usability) of the
name.

swf@elsegundoca.attgis.com              sarima@netcom.com

The peace of God be with you.