Re: ICZN exegesis was Re: New Shandong Dinosaur Discoveries

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

  Let me merely and finally point out that my argument was on a taxonomic 
emendations level only, and that -i/-ae to -orum style emmendations are part 
and parcel (when it comes to ICZN discussions) to the arguments about -idae 
emendations, especially names ending with -ops being modified. I was never, 
ever, specifically referring to species names, only mentioning them as part of 
the issue. As it is, and as my arguments should bear out, I was talking about 
general and specific application of ICZN guidelines on the cutoff dates for 
neccessary emendations, and that many alterations are not covered by what the 
ICZN argues (from -opsidae to opidae, and from -i to -orum) as being forced 
(which generally follows requiring that the name be an error not on the part of 
the submitting entities, but on the compilers, editors, printers, etc.).

  Now, I am sure that when I am talking about species names in any way, that my 
thesis is about species names, correct? I do not think so, and I'd like to 
justify my statement as a matter of course that I was ONLY referring to 
unjustified emendations stemming from some idea that the ICZN mandates 
alterations of any sort to the correct form, despite it's own statements. Prior 
to 2000, this was possible on the face of the emendation, but now, you have to 
jump through a contorted hoop just to figure what the ICZN has to say on 
mandated alterations (and none seem to apply, as I can see it).

  Cheers,

Jaime A. Headden

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