Re: Details on Capitalsaurus (revised)

["Mickey_Mortimer11" <Mickey_Mortimer11@email.msn.com>]

Tracy Ford wrote-

> You really really have to be careful, especially if what you wrote ever
was
> published. YOUR name would be connected to the genus because you also gave
a
> diagnosis with it. If he's not going to do it, then you don't either. Do
you
> want to be known as the person who scoops other paleontologists? Also,
> writing it up before it was formally published by the author is not good
> either. Just watch what you do so you don't mess up anyone else's
research.

I did say-
"In any case, because the taxon has been previously described (albeit under
a different name), I hope this doesn't count as scooping Kranz.  Instead I
hope it publicizes knowledge of just what the taxon he published was
intended to do- provide a stable generic name for a potentially valid
Arundel theropod."
... at the start of my "Details on Capitalsaurus" post.  Redescribing a
previously described specimen is not like describing an undescribed one.  If
it was published, I could see a problem, but it's not.  Actually, Kranz
wants me to publish it, so I don't think he'd have a problem if it was.  Now
that all of this "Dinosaur Act" stuff and list discussion is taking place,
I'll probably consider it.  I'll do some research, contact Kranz and see
where to go from there....
But the warning is appreciated.  I'll be sure not to scoop others (else
you'd have all seen my thoughts on the aye-aye theropod and its phylogenetic
position by now  bwa-ha-ha :-) ).

Mickey Mortimer