RE: Vitakridrinda publication validity

[Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>]

>From Forster et al. (1998)- "The holotype specimen of this new bird, Rahona 
>ostromi, gen. et sp. nov. ..."  So that's not an example at least.

Mickey Mortimer

----------------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 00:01:34 +0100
> From: david.marjanovic@gmx.at
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Vitakridrinda publication validity
>
> > The fact is that the ICZN rules are not always followed. But unless
> > someone actually makes a point of contesting a name, then it doesn't
> > become an issue.
>
> Extreme example: several binomina from the late 1990s and/or early 2000s were 
> erected not as "new genus & species" but just as "new taxon". (Isn't 
> <i>Rahonavis</i> one of those non-genera?) As far as the ICZN is concerned, 
> that makes them utterly and totally invalid. Nobody seems to care, hardly 
> anybody seems to so much as notice.