Re: _Archaeoraptor_

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 11/13/99 12:48:44 PM EST, Gothgrrl@aol.com writes:

<< It's possible someone's pointed this out already (I confess to not having 
 read every post related to the recent NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC article), but 
 since, by the ICZN code, pp. 100-101 of Vol. 195, No. 5 of NG, does 
 constitute a valid (albeit marginal) taxonomic description, then Stephen 
 Czerkas, when he *does* get around to describing the Liaoning fossil, cannot 
 be the *author* of the binomen _Archaeoraptor liaoningensis_. Rather, that 
 honor falls to Christopher P. Sloan, who wrote the NG article. Thus, the 
 correct name is _Archaeoraptor liaoningensis_ Sloan 1999, whether that was 
 Sloan's intention or not. >>

As I pointed out previously, the article has enough disclaimers in it that 
the appearance of the name Archaeoraptor liaoningensis cannot be regarded as 
a formal nomenclatural act. Disclaimers exclude names under Article I section 
6 of the 1985 Code, which covers names not intended for formal taxonomic use. 
Archaeoraptor liaoningensis is, for the moment, just a nomen nudum with no 
scientific standing. In the old days, however, a description like the one 
that appeared in NG would have stood up.