Re: [dinosaur] Origolestes, or the blurry limits of nomenclatural availability

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

The science is fine; the "supp. inf." _is_ a proper descriptive paper that goes 
into amazing detail and will no doubt be useful for generations. The question 
is whether the _nomenclature_ is fine.

(OK, I have issues with the phylogenetic analysis, but at the rate at which 
updated phylogenetic analyses of Mesozoic mammals have been coming out, those 
issues could all be resolved a year or two from now... if perhaps only to be 
replaced by new ones.)

Gesendet:ÂFreitag, 06. Dezember 2019 um 17:21 Uhr
Von:Â"Mike Taylor" <sauropoda@gmail.com>

On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 at 16:18, Thomas Richard Holtz 
<tholtz@umd.edu[mailto:tholtz@umd.edu]> wrote:

> As I said on Facebook, Fie on the authors, reviewers, and editors for doing 
> this.

And on the entire academic incentive structure, for making this anti-scientific 
behaviour more advantageous to the authors' careers than a proper descriptive 
paper in a real venue.