Re: Valid in name only?

[Christopher Taylor <ck.taylor@auckland.ac.nz>]

    The requirement for a name to refer to an organism refers only to the
author's intention, which is why I said I was asking specifically about the
validity of the name, not the organism. Names such as _Archaeozoon_,
_Mawsonites_ and _Halysium_ are still valid *as names*, even though the
"organisms" they refer to are actually inorganic. They remain so that the
name cannot be later applied to any other 'organism'. After all, there are
cases such as _Vernanimalcula_ or _Mawsonites_ where some would call them
organic, some would not.
    Okamura's names were published in his own "Original Report of the
Okamura Fossil Laboratory" (aptly-named - they were certainly original).
Though privately published, the series appears to be held by a number of
libraries around the planet, and I think it would satisfy the requirements
for availability.

    Cheers,

        Christopher Taylor

On 20/7/04 9:45 am, "Mickey Mortimer" <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com> wrote:

> 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
>