Re: News Story on Infobeat: Scientist disputes China fossil

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 1/21/00 5:34:18 PM EST, NJPharris@aol.com writes:

<< As Luis Rey has pointed out, and as this article emphasizes, it is 
important 
 to remember that the revelation that _Archaeoraptor_ was faked actually 
 leaves us with *two* new feathered dinosaurs from Liaoning:  the torso (and 
 head?), which will presumably retain the name _A. liaoningensis_ and a 
 feathered (?) dromaeosaur tail. >>

Contrary to what Storrs Olsen has said, the name _Archaeoraptor 
liaoningensis_ is a _nomen nudum_. The appearance of the name with a few 
photos in _National Geographic_ does not constitute a description according 
to the 1985 Zoological Code (which was still in force when the article 
appeared), particularly since the article is written in such a way as to 
specifically disclaim itself from being a nomenclatural act. (It says the 
specimen ">will be described< as _Archaeoraptor_, etc.," or words to that 
effect.) There is no obligation on the part of the future describer of the 
specimen to use the name _Archaeoraptor liaoningensis_, and if there are two 
animals in the fossil, they can both be named differently from each other and 
from the name used by _National Geographic_. Something much like this 
happened with the Chinese theropod called "Jiangjunmiaosaurus" in various 
press releases a few years ago. It turned out to be two theropods mixed 
together, and when these were finally disentangled and described, they were 
called _Sinraptor_ and _Monolophosaurus_. Being a _nomen nudum_, the name 
"Jiangjunmiaosaurus" was simply ignored.