[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: FAQs on Priority of Names



> Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 23:49:07 +0200
> From: "David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
> 
> > As always, I welcome feedback -- particularly clarification on
> > this point: According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1997,
> > 2:547), ``in 1974 the name Brontosaurus was formally discarded''.
> > Really?  By whom?  Why?  Wasn't it already formally invalid?
> 
> Probably this alludes to the American Museum of Natural History that
> changed the label, skull and tail end in AFAIK 1975. The museum is
> famous, Riggs 1903 is not...

While I accept the warnings about believing a non-specialist
encyclopedia on dinosaurs, I would think that _Britannica_ is
reputable enough that would be careful not to use the phrase "formally
discarded" to refer to one museum's relabelling.  Oh well.  If I can't
find more information on this, I'll remove the _Britannica_ reference.

> Isn't *Manospondylus* a nomen oblitum ("forgotten name"), means it
> hasn't been used for 50 years and therefore become invalid? (The
> answer is somewhere in the archives.)

_Everything_ is _somewhere_ in the archives!

They're big archives :-)

 _/|_    _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor   <mike@miketaylor.org.uk>   www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "Our users will know fear and cower before our software!  Ship
         it!  Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!" --
         Klingon Programming Mantra