Re: ICZN exegesis was Re: New Shandong Dinosaur Discoveries

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

Since when was I ever referring only to species names? I was talking ONLY about 
em[m]endations specifically, and obligatory requirements and how they are to be 
applied. And regardless of whether you mentioned one article, you spent a long 
post listing the others, so I figured, hey, bring it up ANYWAY. However, I 
would caution you on unneccesary corrections on posts, as it comes off as a 
little snide.

  I have noted before, I think (and in conjunction with Tim Williams) that 
parts of the current Code are ambiguous on mandating alterations to 
nomenclature -- despite the wishes of some -- and this has led to the biannual 
debate on what the Code says to do about Ceratopsidae, and it seems it keeps 
getting brought up despite the same articles being cut and pasted or typed out 
from print. Seriously, people (and the Code) can disagree to their hearts' 
contentment; without an obligatory heeding of the Code or rejection of it, or 
application of the PhyloCode to the issue, which preserves Ceratopsia/idae 
until it's "republished."

  (Oh, my "Y" key sticks a lot.... If you feel the urge to insert "y" anywhere 
in my posts, try to resist. The same goes for "[sic]" applications.)

  Cheers,

Jaime A. Headden

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)