Re: [dinosaur] Parirau, new pterosaur from Late Cretaceous of New Zealand (free pdf)

Note the policy at paleorXiv: https://paleorxiv.github.io/submission_guidelines.html

Taxonomic submissions

When submitting taxonomic papers that identify new genera or species, please omit the name and replace with 'gen et. sp. nov.', as appropriate.
For newly named higher level taxa, recombinations, referrals, synonymisations, and phylogenetic definitions, we strongly advise that these be fully redacted too prior to submission.
For manuscripts that include a lot of taxonomic and systematic work, authors are advised to carefully consider the taxonomic implications before publishing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personal websiteÂ- Home of the Green Tea and Velociraptors blog.

On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 10:28 AM Tyler Greenfield <tgreenfield999@gmail.com> wrote:

I understand that peer review is not required by the ICZN (although encouraged); I should have clarified that biorxiv is not a registered journal and fails Art. 8.5.3.2 like you stated. I see nomen nudum used to refer to all names that are not validly published, including but not limited to if they fail Art. 13.

On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 8:17 PM David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote:

Gesendet:ÂSonntag, 22. Dezember 2019 um 00:04 Uhr
Von:Âtgreenfield999@gmail.com

Since this is a preprint on a website made for hosting manuscripts and not published in a peer-reviewed journal, I donât think this constitutes a valid naming.

Â

Peer review is

Â

!!! NOT !!!

Â

required for nomenclatural validity under the ICZN. (It will be under the PhyloCode.)

Â

(Short digression: the notion that peer review is a basic component of science is much younger than many people think. Not only did nobody review Linnaeus, but Nature wasn't peer-reviewed till the 1970s, many small European journals weren't peer-reviewed into the 1990s, and edited books often still aren't AFAIK. Unlike with a preprint server, the editors read and reviewed the manuscripts, but didn't generally send them out to anyone else. Einstein got very angry once when he found out an editor had sent his manuscript to someone for review; he said he hadn't given the editor permission to send it to anyone, especially the person who got it.)

Â

However, what kills the name is ICZN Art. 8.5.3.2: "The entry in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature [ = ZooBank] must give an ISBN for the work or an ISSN for the journal containing the work." bioRÏiv doesn't have an ISSN, so game over until the manuscript comes out in a journal that has one and is either printed or registered in ZooBank anew. Although not a nomen nudum (that would be specifically a name that fails Art. 13, which is not the case here), the name is unavailable at present.