Re: [dinosaur] Camptodontornis, new name for Camptodontus + Sclerocephalus type specimen

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

Gesendet:ÂFreitag, 31. Mai 2019 um 16:02 Uhr
Von:Â"Alberta Claw" <albertonykus@gmail.com>

> There doesn't appear to be any indication that the original describers of 
> "Camptodontus" were consulted in coining the replacement name. Hmm.

Indeed there isn't.

Nonetheless, like *Megapnosaurus* and *Ajancingenia*, the replacement name is 
valid. The ICZN Code of Ethics (Appendix A to the Code) says:

"3. A zoologist should not publish a new replacement name (a nomen novum) or 
other substitute name for a junior homonym when the author of the latter is 
alive; that author should be informed of the homonymy and be allowed a 
reasonable time (at least a year) in which to establish a substitute name."

"7. The observation of these principles is a matter for the proper feelings and 
conscience of individual zoologists, and the Commission is not empowered to 
investigate or rule upon alleged breaches of them."

By the way, if Demirjian really didn't contact Li et al. (absence of evidence 
isn't evidence of absence), the blame doesn't lie with him alone. From the same 
Code of Ethics:

"6. Editors and others responsible for the publication of zoological papers 
should avoid publishing any material which appears to them to contain a breach 
of the above principles."

> It's perhaps worthy of note that Wang et al. (2014) referred the holotype of 
> "Camptodontus" to Longipteryx and Wang et al. (2015) considered it "probably 
> a synonym of Longipteryx chaoyangensis". If this is followed, "Camptodontus" 
> and Camptodontornis would be junior synonyms of Longipteryx.

For this reason, I personally wouldn't even have bothered to publish a 
replacement name.