Re: Theses and Megalosaurids

["Mickey Mortimer" <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com>]

The ever vigilant Jaime Headden wrote-

> 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.

Dan Chure himself considers his thesis a "discussable topic", as seen by his
statement, "The dissertation is publicly available and can be cited, so I
see no harm in discussing its contents."  So I fail to see the reason for
your complaint.  The only complaints Tom, Tracy and others have had is with
me diagnosing and/or repeating the names of nomina nuda mentioned in theses.
Which I did not do here.

>   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.

Perhaps you should tell that to Dan yourself.  He did cite his thesis in his
2001 paper on Allosaurus' carpus as "(Chure 2000)".

Mickey Mortimer