Re: Storrs Olson and Archaeoraptor

["Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>]

George Olshevsky (dinogeorge@aol.com) wrote:

<The problem is that Olson's reference is not a "mere citation." It is an
explicit attempt to revise the taxon Archaeoraptor, which Olson accepted
as available via the National Geographic article. It thus becomes
necessary to suppress the name Archaeoraptor by petitioning the ICZN.>

  The problem here is that Sloan's usage is not available for the purposes
of nomenclature in accordance to Arts. 8 and 9 (specifically the last).
_National Geographic Magazine_ is explicitly not for the purposes of
nomenclature (Art. 9), rendering Sloan's usage and Olson's adoption of
this irrelevant. My observation, anyway. The usage of the name is clearly
invalid anyway because of the lack of a description and/or diagnosis. Art.
54 indicates that a homonym is invalid if it does not meet the Code, and
in reference to Arts. 8 and 9, 20, and 56, it is clear than Archaeoraptor
is a nomen nudum and is unavailable for purposes of establishing priority.
Even though a type was designated, the name is still apparently
meaningless nomenclaturally due to lack of description (Art. 8).

  There is no real name to supress. I would propose a simple letter to
Nature or Science or other journal that would clearly be able to delineate
the nature of the issue. As I see it, Archaeoraptor was never established
as a valid name, and is only a nomen nudum and thus would not need to be
suppressed. Perhaps I still have it wrong, though,

  Cheers,

=====
Jaime A. Headden

  Little steps are often the hardest to take.  We are too used to making leaps 
in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do.  We should all 
learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com