Re: [dinosaur] Oculudentavis again

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

> My point was simply that once the description of the new specimen is formally 
> published (after peer review) in a journal that still accepts Burmese amber 
> research, if the authors use the name Oculudentavis and  cite the holotype 
> from the original authors, that would seem to settle the matter [...]

That would probably settle the matter in actual usage, yes. Thank you for the 
clarification; my point was about a different issue (legal status rather than 
real usage).
Â
> the original diagnostic description technically lost its status as usable 
> when the paper was "retracted" [...]. In theory then, the paper should not be 
> cited nor itsÂcontents used in scientific literature.

That's presumably how Springer Nature understands retraction. The Code, however 
(as I keep saying), does not understand retraction at all: under the Code, 
retraction simply does not exist, the diagnosis/description has _not_ legally 
ceased to exist, and the name *Oculudentavis* remains available from its 
original retracted publication unless the Commission suppresses it in an 
Opinion.

> I perfectly understand what the ICZN means by a "valid" name, which is a 
> purely nomenclatural concept

It's not, because which names are subjective synonyms of each other is a 
taxonomic (and thus, as the name says, subjective) matter. Once you've made 
your taxonomic decisions, the Code tells you which names to use in that 
situation; it doesn't tell you anything about how to make your taxonomic 
decisions, because it only covers nomenclature.

Which names are homonyms is a purely nomenclatural matter. Which names are 
objective synonyms is usually a purely nomenclatural matter, but there's a gray 
area about different specimens belonging to the same individual (a matter more 
of science than of nomenclature).