Re: Odd nomenclatural sidenote for Europasaurus

["T. Michael Keesey" <keesey@gmail.com>]

On 6/7/06, Andrew A. Farke <andyfarke@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In the Europasaurus paper's acknowledgements, the authors state that,
> "P.M.S. was responsible for the bone histology work presented as part of
> this study. The morphology, systematics and taphonomy of the new sauropod
> was studied by the remaining authors, who are to be considered the sole
> authors of the name Europasaurus holgeri gen. et sp. nov."
>
> So this implies that the name should be cited as "Europasaurus holgeri
> Mateus, Laven and KnÃtschke 2006," rather than "Europasaurus holgeri Sander,
> Mateus, Laven, and KnÃtschke 2006." I've never heard of such a thing before.
> Is this really the sort of practice that will be followed? Should it be
> followed? Or does the notation in the acknowledgements carry no weight
> whatsoever?

I believe the proper citation would be: _Europasaurus holgeri_ Mateus,
Laven, et KnÃtschke vide Sander, Mateus, Laven, et KnÃtschke 2006
(Substitute "and" for "et" if you like, naturally.)

There are a fair number of citations which use "vide" to distinguish
the namers of the taxon from the authors of the paper, when necessary.
--
Mike Keesey
The Dinosauricon: http://dino.lm.com
Parry & Carney: http://parryandcarney.com