Re: Valid in name only?

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Christopher Taylor wrote:

>     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.

The same would be true for the Polish "titanosaur" _Succinodon putzeri_ and 
the Belgian "hadrosaur" _Aachenosaurus multidens_.  Both were once thought 
to be dinosaurs, but the former is just a chunk of fossilized wood bored 
into by bivalves (not a titanosaur jawbone), and the latter was based on 
pieces of silicified wood (not hadrosaur jaw fragments).  Strictly speaking, 
both these genera were based on organic material (unlike Christopher's 
examples).   Both _Succinodon_ and _Aachenosaurus_ are valid as names (since 
both genera were described), and both should be treated as _nomina dubia_ .  
There's no reason why both names should be expunged as _nomina oblita_.



Tim

_________________________________________________________________
Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/