Re: Publication and the Code

[Lee Hall <paleeoguy@gmail.com>]

Why be worried about this?  It's not in a legitimate journal, and
therefore it isn't a legitimate publication.  Thus, it has as much
merit as some scribbles on a fancy napkin.


Lee Hall
Paleontology Undergraduate
Museum of the Rockies
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT
lhall@montana.edu
http://sites.google.com/site/leehallpaleo/Home




On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Tim Williams <tijawi@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Dan Chure <danchure@easilink.com> wrote:
>
>
>> http://dinosauriainternational.com/downloads/Amphicoelias.pdf
>>
>>
>> This paper might be of concern because this is a privately
>> published  monograph, published by a commercial entity
>> digging and selling fossils, creates a new taxon that
>> synonymizes a number of long recognized distinct sauropod
>> genera into it, and the "new" species' skeletons may be up
>> for sale in the future.
>
>
> It also declares _Apatosaurus ajax_ a nomen dubium.  I suspected somebody 
> would do this one day; but I thought it would appear in a reputable 
> scientific work.
>
>
> As Mike Taylor says, the "Amphicoelias brontodiplodocus" specimen is 
> gorgeous.  But the monograph (or is it a brochure?) is of poor quality 
> scientifically.  It reminds me of the "Dinosaur Museum Journal" from several 
> years ago.
>
>
>> The issue of self publication
>> of new taxa is occurring with some regularity in the
>> dinosaurian arena of paleontology, but could impact any
>> aspect of VP.  Some think the ICZN is quite out of date
>> on the self publication issue and have handed down some
>> faulty decisions about it in disciplines other than
>> VP.  Others think that this is okay and will just sort
>> itself out. I am not of the latter opinion.
>
>
> Nor am I.  When it comes to self-publication, the ICZN is asleep at the 
> wheel.  This is unfortunate, because self-publication offers a 'backdoor' 
> route to the naming of new genera and species that is ripe for abuse, and the 
> ICZN seems content to wave them through.
>
>
> If it came to a case before the ICZN, then there is no reason why ICZN would 
> not accept "Amphicoelias brontodiplodocus" as a nomenclaturally valid name. 
>  After all, it ticks all the right boxes in the Code.  This is not an 
> endorsement of the publication, BTW; it's just that the Code's rules 
> regarding what constitutes valid publication (Article 8) are so vague and 
> anemic that it is not difficult to fulfill the Code's criteria. 
>  Self-publication is implicitly permitted as long as a token effort is made 
> to provide a public and
> ns recommendations regarding the desirability of publication in 'appropriate 
> scientific journals', and that it be deposited in a library.  But because 
> these are mere recommendations, they might as well be written in invisible 
> ink.
>
>
>> Nevertheless, I thought that it would be useful for members
>> of these list to be aware of this publication and its
>> implications.
>
>
> The implications are ominous.  Considering the ease with which a glossy, 
> professional-looking publication can be put together, this sort of 
> self-publication could be the tip of the iceberg.
>
>
> I know the 'paleontological community' is not monolithic (including those who 
> work in the dinosaurian arena).  But given the permissive attitude of the 
> ICZN, the safest course of action would be to simply ignore this name (i.e., 
> treat it as a nomen nudum).  Recognizing "Amphicoelias brontodiplodocus" as 
> valid is only going to encourage the naming of new dinosaurs in 
> self-published, poor-quality publications.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim
>
>
>
>