Re: Vitakridrinda publication validity

[Tim Williams <tijawi@gmail.com>]

David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote:

>> _Gigantspinosaurus_ also runs afoul of Article 9.9.
>
> Oh, good! So it's still possible to insert the missing o!


Sadly, no.  Maidment & Wei (2006) subsequently validated the name
_Gigantspinosaurus_.  They could have used the opportunity to revise
the spelling (= insert the o), but didn't.  Instead, they implicitly
regarded Ouyang's (1992) publication as valid.


> Concerning community standards, I'd rather have rules "in ink now than in 
> blood later".


The Code is so frequently flouted that many of its rules and
recommendations might as well be written in invisible ink.




Cheers

Tim