Re: Irritator

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 96-01-16 00:44:18 EST, tuckr@digital.net writes:

>OK, this one's for George.
>
>Five years from now, Tom Holtz unearths a new, large theropod from beneath 
>an immense, black, prismatic slab of unknown, possibly extra-terrestrial, 
>origin. He describes his find (using as a word processor his new HAL 9000 
>computer, bought with funds from the largest NSF grant ever awarded) under 
>the name _Calvinosaurus wattersoni_. In _Mesozoic Meanderings #101_ do 
>you cite it as _Calvinosaurus wattersoni_ Holtz 2001 _non_ Orenstein 1996?
>
>

I hate to spoil the fun by pouring cold, bureaucratic water on everything,
but--I don't cite names of imaginary dinosaurs, which is what _Calvinosaurus
wattersoni_ Orenstein 1996 presently is--not to mention not being a published
name according to Code rules, with a differential diagnosis, etc. If Holtz
were to get the opportunity to describe a real large-theropod fossil in 2001,
he could name it _Calvinosaurus wattersoni_ without fear of being preoccupied
by Orenstein, 1996. Orenstein's contribution could be acknowledged in the
paper, or Holtz could even invite Orenstein to be a junior co-author, which
would make the taxon _Calvinosaurus wattersoni_ Holtz & Orenstein, 2001.

Somebody really should name a dinosaur species after Bill Watterson one of
these days, while the memory of Calvin & Hobbes is still fresh in everyone's
mind. Also, some publisher should give thought to producing _The Complete
Calvin & Hobbes_: every daily and Sunday strip reprinted in chronological
order as originally published.

I recall one Sunday C&H strip about four-five years ago that featured a large
carnosaur. In the San Diego _Union-Tribune_, it was called a "therapod," but
in the _Los Angeles Times_ someone had carefully relettered the balloon to
read "theropod." (Or maybe it was vice versa--someone in San Diego screwed up
and "corrected" it.)