Re: [dinosaur] Neuquensaurus name availability?

The editorial process appears to be enough to make Powell's thesis count as published:

Article 9. What does not constitute published work

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 8, none of the following constitutes published work within the meaning of the Code:

[...]

9.12. facsimiles or reproductions obtained on demand of an unpublished work [Art. 8], even if previously deposited in a library or other archive.

^{Example. A Ph.D. thesis that was distributed only to members of the student's thesis committee is listed for sale in the catalogue of a print-on-demand publisher. The print-on-demand work is a reproduction of the thesis. Because the thesis was an unpublished work in its original form, it remains unpublished. If an editorial process was evident in converting the work to print-on-demand form (e.g., change to single spacing, repagination, addition of running headers), it might be considered published.}

But note that the edited work, not the original thesis, counts as the publication here. The publication date is the date the edited work first became available (apparently 1992 for real, going by Wikipedia), not the date the thesis was defended (which was apparently in 1986).

I haven't seen the publication, but, judging from the Wikipedia article on Neuquensaurus, the type species is indicated simply by monotypy:

68.3. Type species by monotypy

When an author establishes a new nominal genus-group taxon for a single taxonomic species and denotes that species by an available name, the nominal species so named is the type species. Fixation by this means is deemed to be fixation by monotypy, regardless of any cited synonyms, subspecies, or unavailable names, and regardless of whether the author considered the nominal genus-group taxon to contain other species which he or she did not cite by name, and regardless of nominal species-group taxa doubtfully included or identified.

Everything should be fine, then.

Gesendet: Freitag, 22. November 2019 um 04:59 Uhr
Von: "Iain Reid" <iainstein27@gmail.com>
An: dinosaur-l@usc.edu
Betreff: [dinosaur] Neuquensaurus name availability?

Is Neuquensaurus a valid name, and if so what year gets attribution?

Powell 1992 doesn't indicate a type species or a new combination so it fails the ICZN requirements for a valid replacement genus for pre-1999 names, and Powell 2003 lacks an indication it is a new name (attributes it to Powell 1992). Unless Powell's thesis qualifies as a publication (went through an editorial process before being released as print-on-demand) I think Neuquensaurus might be a nomen nudum, which is really unfortunate because its a good taxon.