|
Gregory Paul wrote-
> Although this solution makes certain sense, what happens if the holotype is given a new genus-species tag -- presumably one more appropriate to its real phylogeny -- in a new and more correct paper? And although that
may not happen in this case, it could in another.
Thomas Holtz wrote-
> To be fair, the ICZN is just a bunch of folks and the Code just some words on paper which we can ignore if we want to.
Yes, but the zoological community chooses to give them power so that we have an objective nomenclature. We don't have to extend the same power to Springer Nature.
Paul P. wrote- > There's no retracting unless the Mar 11 issue of Nature hasn't been printed yet...
It was printed and Oculudentavis is even the cover story and photograph.
> And what exactly does "a new unpublished specimen casts doubts upon our hypothesis regarding the phylogenetic position of HPG-15-3" mean..?
That's another pathetic part of this story is that the authors couldn't even just be forthright and say "Turns out Li et al. were correct and new material shows this is a lepidosaur", instead being cryptic like an SVP
abstract.
â
Mickey Mortimer
|