Re: Valid in name only?

[Mickey Mortimer <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com>]

Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. wrote-

> Taxonomic names have to refer to organisms; otherwise, they aren't names,
> they're just words.  Therefore, no, it isn't a validly published name.

But Okamura thought it was an organism when he named it.  Much like the
recent supposed Precambrian bilaterian Vernanimalcula guizhouena (Chen et
al., 2004), which some people believe is a mineral artifact.  It's not like
Borogovia holtzi, which was never intended to refer to a real specimen.
Or are taxa that turn out to be non-organic just thrown out of taxonomy
altogether?

Mickey Mortimer
Undergraduate, Earth and Space Sciences
University of Washington
The Theropod Database - http://students.washington.edu/eoraptor/Home.html