Re: Having your ideas published without attribution, and having your names with priority ignored

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

Mickey Mortimer wrote:

> Honestly, the flouting of the  ICZN isn't my biggest worry. As you
> say, none of us uses Deinodontidae (though we should!).

Aren't Deinodontidae and Atlantosauridae nomina oblita? If not, I'm sure 
a petition to suppress them (and Ornithodesmidae) would quickly be 
successful.

> What's concerning is that  instead of honestly mentioning
> Omnivoropteryx and saying the authors prefer to ignore it and its
> family due to ethical issues regarding its import into the US, they
> pretend it doesn't exist. Let that sink in- scientists are
> purposefully excluding information from their paper, with the
> apparent hope people will ignore or never learn about history. Gao
> et al. state "To date, the clade is known from fewer than a dozen
> published specimens and four species." If we're right in thinking
> the authors know about Omnivoropteryx (basically a certainty),
> realize it is valid according to the ICZN (there's absolutely no
> reason it wouldn't be) and realize it falls within their
> Sapeornithidae (also a near certainty), that's a LIE. Whoever wrote
> that sentence- Chiappe, Gao, or whoever is near certainly a LIAR.
> And whoever among the authors and reviewers read that sentence and
> knew about Omnivoropteryx being related allowed a lie into the
> published literature.
>
> Are you truly comfortable with scientists lying in the published
> literature?

I'm not sure they realize *Omnivoropteryx* is valid according to the 
ICZN. Lots of people, including professionals who have named taxa 
before, have loopy ideas about what the ICZN actually says. Some of 
those are very widespread; all the time I encounter people who believe 
in page and line priority...

This is, of course, strongly encouraged by the fact that the ICZN is 
long, convoluted, and assumes more or less basic concepts instead of 
ever explaining them; it is therefore hard to read. Few people have read 
most or all of it. In fact, it's so convoluted that I once discovered a 
probable contradiction in it (during a discussion on this list; I forgot 
what exactly, but some kind of spelling apparently must and must not be 
emended at the same time).

I haven't read all of it, and I don't remember everything I've read 
(again, the length and convulsion make that more difficult). Is the type 
specimen of *Omnivoropteryx* in a publicly accessible repository? I'll 
look up if that's necessary.

<sigh> Years ago, someone sat down and rewrote the entire International 
Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (soon: Prokaryotes) to make it legible. 
The Commission immediately adopted his version; it is indeed a wonder of 
clarity.

...Speaking of the ICZN... Jaime, I haven't forgotten our discussion 
about *Jeholornis primus*, I just haven't found enough time yet. Just so 
much: "prima" cannot be a noun in apposition, _because it isn't a noun_. 
It's an ordinal number, and those work exactly like adjectives (indeed, 
the distinction is artificial for Indo-European languages), agreeing 
with the noun they refer to in gender, number and case. The whole thing 
just means "the first *Jeholornis*".