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

Re: FAQs on Priority of Names

Mike,
The Britannica's statement is perhaps not incorrect, but obviously very misleading. The phrase "formally synonymized" would have been better. Formally discarded could be interpreted as formally invalid, but I doubt that Brontosaurus will ever be formally invalidated by the International Commission (ICZN).
If _ajax_ and _excelsus_ are regarded as belonging to one genus, Apatosaurus is the correct name to use (it has priority). If you regard _excelsus_ as generically distinct (as Bakker apparently still does), you can still use the name Brontosaurus excelsus (but never Brontosaurus ajax). Brontosaurus is still a valid and available name. "Discarded" is a nebulous term that the Britannica should probably not have used in this context. Therefore, I think removing the Britannica reference would be a good idea.
---Cheers, Ken
******************************************** 
From: Mike Taylor <mike@tecc.co.uk>
Reply-To: mike@tecc.co.uk
To: david.marjanovic@gmx.at
CC: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: FAQs on Priority of Names
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 12:14:37 +0100

> 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



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp