Re: Platecarpus tympaniticus - how to analyze a nomen dubium

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

 > OK, so that's a step in the right direction that addresses my last
>  comment. But PhyloCode will STILL turn into a free-for-all contest
>  to see who can get their name(s) attached to the most clade names,
>  which is unproductive.

I suppose that's one reason why Art. 4.2 of the PhyloCode _requires_ 
peer review for the valid publication of any nomenclatural act.
http://www.ohio.edu/phylocode/art4-5.html

It is further likely that referees will take such things as Rec. 9B into 
account.
http://www.ohio.edu/phylocode/art9.html (scroll to the bottom)

>  And if you think I'm wrong about how this will turn out, I give you
>  TaxonSearch: great idea in concept, really poor in execution.

What has TaxonSearch got to do with the PhyloCode? It's Sereno's 
alternative to the PhyloCode.