Re: [dinosaur] Public service announcement was IGNORING A DEINODONT

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

Gesendet:ÂMittwoch, 14. MÃrz 2018 um 08:04 Uhr
Von:Â"Tim Williams" <tijawi@gmail.com>

> Brochu (2003) has dealt with the _Tyrannosaurus_ vs _Manospondylus_
> issue (DOI: 10.1080/02724634.2003.10010947). Long story short:
> _Manospondylus_ is toast.

Ah yeah. Page 3:

"Second, according to current taxonomic practice, a name is considered invalid 
if it has not been used in formal literature for fifty years and a junior 
synonym has gained widespread use (ICZN, 2000). *Manospondylus* has not, to my 
knowledge, been applied since its initial publication in 1892, and no one would 
seriously argue that the name Tyrannosaurus rex is not in widespread use."

Ah yeah. The first sentence is erroneous (it's "after 1899", not "for fifty 
years", in Art. 23.9.1.2). Whether Brochu fulfilled Art. 23.9.2 may be arguable 
nonetheless:

"23.9.2. An author who discovers that both the conditions of 23.9.1 are met 
should cite the two names together [done] and state explicitly that the younger 
name is valid [done], and that the action is taken in accordance with this 
Article [_not_ done]; at the same time the author must give evidence that the 
conditions of Article 23.9.1.2 are met [done â not explicitly, but a short 
look at the references list will suffice], and also state that, to his or her 
knowledge, the condition in Article 23.9.1.1 applies [done]. From the date of 
publication of that act the younger name has precedence over the older name. 
[...]"

All is there except the citation of Art. 23. Even "ICZN, 2000" isn't correct, 
it should be 1999 if Brochu meant the Code â which is of course very likely, 
but not certain because "ICZN" is missing from the references list! There's 
nothing between Hutt et al. and Juul on p. 132.

Theoretically, then, somebody could still use *Manospondylus* as valid and sink 
*Tyrannosaurus*. However, absent evidence that is practically guaranteed not to 
exist, nobody can do this just to become famous:

"23.9.6. The deliberate use of a name contrary to Article 23.9.1, or the 
mentioning of a name in a synonymy, or its mere listing in an abstracting 
publication, or in a nomenclator or other index or list of names must not be 
taken into account in determining usage under Articles 23.9.1.1 and 23.9.1.2."

De jure, then, *Manospondylus* is de facto a nomen oblitum. :-)