[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Archaeoraptor v Microraptor
In a message dated 1/1/01 7:01:29 PM EST, twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com writes:
<< Similarly, in the _Archaeoraptor_ vs _Microraptor_ fracas, we have one
*part* of the specimen (the tail vertebrae) carrying the name
_Archaeoraptor_ and the whole specimen carrying the name _Microraptor_. If
the tail vertebrae are non-diagnostic then, like _Manospondylus_,
_Archaeoraptor_ can be put to bed as a _nomen dubium_. >>
Just posted on this to paleonet:
The situation is something like this: Suppose paleontologist A finds a
dinosaur forelimb in a quarry and decribes it as a new genus. In the
meantime, paleontologist B continues to excavate the quarry and finds the
rest of the skeleton and, not knowing that A already described the forelimb
(because the description appeared in a poorly distributed newsletter, say),
describes it as a second new genus. >If the descriptions are properly done<,
then B's name sinks as a junior synonym of A's name; they're based on the
same individual animal and are therefore objective synonyms. (An objective
synonym is described in the ICZN as a name with the same name-bearing type as
another name. This would fall into that category, since the synonymy would
not be a matter of opinion and therefore subjective.) But if A's description
is some kind of offhand, slipshod piece of work, whereas B's description is
up to contemporary scientific standards, then the paleo community might
prefer B's name over A's. That's when the ICZN must be petitioned to overrule
the normal rule of priority, reject A's name, and accept B's name as the
available name for the taxon.
So technically, Archaeoraptor has priority over Microraptor right now. But in
view of the circumstances surrounding the creation of the two names, I think
Archaeoraptor should be rejected in favor of Microraptor. It would be
inappropriate to have Storrs Olson's name attached to a Chinese dinosaur that
was properly named and described by Chinese paleontologists unaware of what
Olson did.