Re: Theses and Megalosaurids

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

Jaime Headden wrote-

> > 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 is close enough. I never said you cannot talk about the thesis, but
> taxonomy must be restricted. Here is the rest of what Dan said:
>
>   "The dissertation is publicly available and can be cited, so I see no
> harm in discussing its contents.  Saying it is known as "Alshansaurus" is,
> of course, incorrect, as a dissertation does not meet the standards for
> the ICZN code.  I would have preferred to have it simply referred to as a
> new genus rather than mention the name itself, [....]"

I've really tried to be civil Jaime, but your insistance on this is quite
aggravating.  As you quoted, Dan said he would prefer to have his new taxa
be referred to simply as new taxa, without their names given.  And I did
just that.  If Dan does not have a problem with this, why should you?
And why should I obey your dictates as to how to handle nomina nuda (don't
mention them), compared to Tracy's for instance (mentioning is fine, just
don't diagnose)?  The only reason I haven't been giving names of Dan's taxa
recently is because of his personal request not to.
Finally, why do you single out me in this "no mentioning nomina nuda"
crusade, while at least nine other DML members have mentioned Chure's names
onlist (some after Chure asked people not to), and I have yet to see you
chastise them?  It's extremely irritating being discriminated against like
this.
So please stop.

Sorry for that outburst everyone, time to get back to coding
coelurosaurs.....

Mickey Mortimer