Re: _Archaeoraptor_

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 11/14/99 8:57:47 AM EST, qilongia@yahoo.com writes:

<< However, if my understanding is right on the matters
 of naming a formal taxon and having it _accepted_,
 then the aforementioned "Archaeoraptor" has to have a
 formal description, however brief, that describes the
 fossil in some detail, a name, an etymology, a
 designated type specimen, and a photo or illustration
 of the fossil accompanying the rest; only a few of
 these were provided, and though the name appeared in a
 peer reviewed journal (as did *Erlikosaurus,* in
 Barsbold and Perle, 1979) the formal description is
 the final word, and must also be published in a
 peer-reviewed journal. _Enquirer_ doesn't cut it, and
 to my understanding, neither does _Priroda_ [Nature],
 a Russian popular press magazince in which
 *Therizinosaurus* first appeared (Maleev, 1951).
 Perle, 1976 was the first to formally publish the name
 with a description of the type claws, so perhaps the
 proper citation should be: *Therizinosaurus
 cheloniformis* Maleev _vide_ Perle, 1976. >>

The Code doesn't require publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Basically, 
all that is required is that the name be a properly formed Latin construction 
accompanied by a description that purports to differentiate the taxon from 
its most closely related or similar taxa, a designated type specimen, and 
publication in a form whose public availability is unrestricted, "in numerous 
identical copies," for the purpose of providing a permanent scientific record 
(see Article 11). Publication in Priroda satisfies these criteria, and 
Therizinosaurus cheloniformis is universally accepted as having been 
published by Maleev in 1954 (that's the date I have; please check, as my copy 
of that paper is buried).