Theses and Megalosaurids

["Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>]

It is clear with recent posts that the actual utility of a thesis has gone
bye-bye.... Mickey writes about how some taxa were named by Chure. This is
just one further example of how theses are considered discussable topics
when it comes to taxonomy by some people (not just Mickey, though). The
essence of the issue that Chure named anything is demonstrable in the
following example:

  Take a manuscript. In it I propose a new genus for most species of
polyspecific sauropods that lack generic designations. Call Diplodocus
longus Megadiplodocus, for example. I can then reference this manuscript
as having said "Headden named D. longus as Megadiplodocus".

  But it doesn't work. It's just a manuscript. The same is for a thesis,
no matter what volume of work goes into it. Imagine intense work going
into a published manuscript, just without being published. Such data is
not bruited about. A thesis differs only in some details: it is the
exclusive property of the institution which calls for its existence (which
is done in fulfillment of a contract for a degree) and is thus not free
for distribution without permission of that institution. Such infringement
can lead to civil action. A name is thus not availble for discussion.
However, once the DATA has been published, it is.

  This may even be more annoying to some: The proper citation for a thesis
is not name, date ... it has not ben published. It goes name, "PhD thesis,
date". This is to _set it apart_ from published documents.

  Cheers,

=====
Jaime A. Headden

  Little steps are often the hardest to take.  We are too used to making leaps 
in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do.  We should all 
learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com