Re: Odd nomenclatural sidenote for Europasaurus

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

----- Original Message -----
From: <gerarus@westnet.com.au>
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 3:52 AM

> [...] most people will overlook the restriction (I know I would
> have :-( ).

I have. :-)

> (in my experience, _ex_ is used a lot more commonly than _vide_

You are a botanist, right? :o)

> (for instance, if Mike coined
> a _nomen nudum_ somewhere that I later validated by publishing a
> description, an appropriate citation would be Keesey _ex_ Taylor).

Do botanists do that? In zoology, nomina nuda officially don't exist (e. g. 
they don't participate in the homonymy and synonymy games), and if you 
validly published the name before the original author, you'd usually be seen 
as robbing him -- see the *Galve(o)saurus* case; the original author would 
_not_ be cited at all because he wouldn't have had anything to do with 
making the name valid.

> So in this case, the appropriate citation would be _Europasaurus
> holgeri_ Mateus, Laven & Knötschke _in_ Sander, Mateus, Laven &
> Knötschke 2006.

Yep.

>    Ain't taxonomy grand?

Just nomenclature :^)