Re: Gigantspinosaurus: a legit name (was RE: Almost New Papers)

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Tom Holtz wrote:

> Sadly, it is legit and so we don't get to improve the name. Susannah 
> Maidment (Cambridge) presented a stegosaur paper at SVP last year with this 
> critter in it. Afterwards I asked about its
> status, and as far as she can tell Ouyang 1992 represents a valid work
> for the purposes of taxonomic nomenclature.

Yes, the article that first describes _Gigantspinosaurus_ might fulfll 
(barely) the letter of the ICZN Code - if not the spirit.  However, one 
potential loophole is offered by Article 9 ("What does not constitute 
published work").  The last provision (9.9) states: "abstracts of articles, 
papers, posters, texts of lectures, and similar material when issued 
primarily to participants at meetings, symposia, colloquia or congresses."  
Ouyeng (1992) may fit the bill, given that the article appears in a text 
entitled:

   "The Satellite Meeting of the First Youth Academic Annual Confereces by 
Chinese Science
    Association, Abstracts and Summaries for Youth Academic Symposium on 
New Discoveries and
    Ideas in Stratigraphic Paleontology, Nanjing, Dec. 1992."

Although it's clear that Ouyeng (1992) is more than just an abstract, it may 
be that dissemination of the _Gigantspinosaurus_ description might have been 
limited to attendees of this symposium.  If so, it is not a valid 
publication, according to Article 9.

The original 1992 publication also flouts a number of Recommendations ("Wide 
dissemination", "Public accessibility of published works", etc) by dint of 
the fact that the publication has escaped attention for so long (Dinosauria 
II omits it, for example), and is almost impossible to acquire.  Still, 
these are just Recommendations.

David Marjanovic wrote:

> Is it "sichanensis" in the original?
>
> Because if the specific name contains an obvious typo, maybe we can make a 
> case that the generic name does, too?

I'm not sure the ICZN would be too sympathetic.  The author would have to 
make it clear that he intended to spell the name differently in the original 
publication, and that something went awry (32.5.1).  Even if more than one 
spelling appeared in the original article (i.e., something other than the 
lamentable "Gigantspinosaurus"), subsequent publications would appear to 
have cemented the correct spelling as _Gigantspinosaurus_, since one of 
these would serve as a de facto First Reviser (Article 24 - although 24.2.5. 
may offer a glimmer of hope).

Cheers

Tim

_________________________________________________________________
Rates near 39yr lows!  $430K Loan for $1,399/mo - Paying Too Much? Calculate 
new payment 
http://www.lowermybills.com/lre/index.jsp?sourceid=lmb-9632-18226&moid=7581