As discussed in the Oculudentavis retraction thread, no group has power unless we give it to them. But there's no moral value to giving a group power if you only follow them when you want to. Then you haven't given them power at all, you're just using them
when they agree with you and ignoring them when you don't.
You are right, in general terms. But what we're dealing with here is not the ICZN handing down a judgement "You must use name X instead of name Y", but a situation where everyone in palaeontology has universally used Y, and now we've noticed that X is arguably more correct. This is exactly the kind of situation that the nomen oblitum exists for, even if the present case doesn't meet the specific requirements that the code specifies for such a name. I bet if we tried we could find another half-dozen dinosaur names that "need" to be replaced with older synonyms under a strict application of the Code. We don't do that because we implicitly understand that that's not what the Code is about.
Â
I WANT there to be a group with power over nomenclature, or else we're all just playing games so why bother knowing and citing the Codes because the community will do what it does? If the ICZN were
some draconian unbending entity that was finding resolutions most people disliked I might see your point, but they are very willing to engage with the community to maintain stability and fairness, so the least we can do is engage with them.
This is an aside to my main point, but in fact the ICZN is NOT much use in terms of engagement: it may be willing but it's sooo ssslllooowww that it might as well not be in practice. It's no use asking them what name to use for Lambeosaurus, then suspending work on hadrosaurs for a decade until their process grinds exceeding fine.
Your opinion on Procheneosaurus is confusing since you admit the community will support dumping it regardless, so there couldn't be any confusion to be stirred up if it were a cut and dry case. So given the choice, wouldn't you rather have it officially suppressed
than unofficially ignored and always there in the background as not really a valid thing?
I'd rather not waste my (or anyone's) time and energy on this â especially as there is always the chance that some neomalacologist on the committee will randomly decide that this is the moment to stick to the rules and insist on the name Procheneosaurus. Let's just get on with our actual work.
-- Mike.
Procheneosaurus
Mickey Mortimer
I don't like this mindset because then the rules we follow become subjective choice, so why bother with rules at all and treat ICZN Articles as recommendations.
I understand your disquiet, but this is the reality. The ICZN has no power to do anything but recommend. It's great to have it there, but the truth is always that the nomenclature in actual use is determined by what people actually use â in fact, it's more
than truth, it's tautology. So there is simply no value in stirring up confusion about Procheneosaurus, as there is zero chance of the global community switching away from Lambeosaurus to that name.
-- Mike.