Re: Details on Capitalsaurus (revised)

["Tracy L. Ford" <dino.hunter@home.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mickey_Mortimer11" <Mickey_Mortimer11@email.msn.com>
To: <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 7:57 PM
Subject: Re: Details on Capitalsaurus (revised)
>
> I did say-
> "In any case, because the taxon has been previously described (albeit
under
> a different name), I hope this doesn't count as scooping Kranz.  Instead I
> hope it publicizes knowledge of just what the taxon he published was
> intended to do- provide a stable generic name for a potentially valid
> Arundel theropod."<<
> ... at the start of my "Details on Capitalsaurus" post.  Redescribing a
> previously described specimen is not like describing an undescribed one.
If
> it was published, I could see a problem, but it's not.  Actually, Kranz
> wants me to publish it, so I don't think he'd have a problem if it was.
Now
> that all of this "Dinosaur Act" stuff and list discussion is taking place,
> I'll probably consider it.  I'll do some research, contact Kranz and see
> where to go from there....

It's like you just don't get it. IF you had published the name and the
diagnoses YOUR NAME WOULD BE ATTACHED TO IT!!! Am I banging my head against
the wall? It is up to the writer/author of the paper to do publish offically
first the name. Not in quotes, but the name offically. It doesn't matter
what he entended to do, it is what he did do.

> But the warning is appreciated.  I'll be sure not to scoop others (else
> you'd have all seen my thoughts on the aye-aye theropod and its
phylogenetic
> position by now  bwa-ha-ha :-) ).
>
Your DAMN lucky you didn't. If anyone on the list does I sinceraly hopes
they are booted off the list for life.

> Mickey Mortimer
>