Re: [dinosaur] "Yunyangosaurus" is not available

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

I don't consider Malkani a taxonomic vandal. Unlike a certain R. H., he's not 
renaming known taxa we talk about every day; he's naming new specimens. If 
considered available, most of the names Malkani believes he published would 
probably just sink into synonymy or fade away as nomina dubia; the worst case 
of that would be nothing more than a repetition of the *Titanosaurus* 
situation, I think.

Gesendet:ÂDienstag, 28. Januar 2020 um 05:59 Uhr
Von:Â"Mickey Mortimer" <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>

> The reason I asked about "Thanos" is because if we accept the Scientific 
> Reports taxa it seems like we're going down a subjective slippery slope. 
> Back in September of last year, everyone seemed fine with accepting 
> Greenfield's and Marjanovic's argument Malkani's Pakistani taxa were invalid 
> because he first named them in an abstract (Article 9.10) and later in a 
> detailed description cited them as being described in the abstract instead of 
> as gen. et sp. nov. (Article 16.1). Which seems to me like a similarly 
> innocent mistake to the Scientific Reports taxa, but people seem less willing 
> to forgive Malkani.ÂÂ Do we have a double standard?