Quoting "David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>:
I am been reading Bertling et al. 2006 and they mention that
Reineck and Flemming give names to both human urinating traces and
tyre traces. While I realize that these are nomina nuda
That would mean there's no description, which I doubt. Perhaps you
mean nomina vana, which would mean there's no type specimen, but it's
entirely possible there is.
Ichnotaxonomy is separate from taxonomy; animals and their works
(such as traces) get separate sets of names that do not compete with
each other.
Actually nomina nuda is the term Bertling et al. 2006 used when
discussing the paper. I believe they chose the term based on the idea
that since the second edition of the ICZN modern "works of animals"*
named after 1931 are not allowed (Art. 1.2.1 or Art. 1.3.6 but that
gives the date as 1930 not 1931 in the copy I am looking at). Reineck
and Flemming essentially created a set of scientific names that are
not allowed by the code. IF these count as nomina nuda or not is not
really my place to say untill I see the paper, if there is no
description and just names then in the strict sense of the term these
would be nomina nuda along with being disallowed by the code. Likely
there is a proper Latin term to be used in this situation but I will
admit I do not know what it is; barring a paper I am writing for a
class my interests/current research projects focus more on the biology
of tracks and their makers then on nomenclature.
*I really don't like this term as technically after Art. 1.3.6 it
refer only to fossils which are left undifined in the code (at which
point will modern tracks and traces become fossils?) and to non animal
works, as any trace that is fossilized falls under the rules of the
ICZN when being named.
-T
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.18/1848 - Release Date: 12/14/2008 12:28 PM