| Virus-free. www.avg.com |
One way or another itÂisÂa fine mess we are in.Â
Mickey's statement is fine. But what if some reasonably do what she does. But others go with the retraction and rename either the holotype, or Âgive a different name to another specimen that is clearly the same species even if the O. k. holotype is diagnostic? (I am not entirely being specific to this situation, because it can arise again with other taxa).Â
Then we would have two competing Ânames for the same taxon and maybe even same specimen for years if not forever. That is not entirely unprecedented, it sometimes happens when it is not clear what paper had time priority when more than one comes out at the same time and the temporal priority cannot be resolved, but it is not good to add to the problem.Â
Maybe it should be decided, perhaps by the ICZN, that a paper that is not fraudulent when it comes to the holotype that includes a new taxon tag cannot be retracted, at least not the systematics section. If the holotype is entirely fraudulent, or if enough of what is left over as legit is not diagnostic, then the paper can be disappeared. Another possible situation is if it is clear that the holotype even if legit is clearly nondiagnostic, or definitely belongs to a prior named species, and the rest of the paper is gravely deficient. Â
In any case, we are not talking about a medical or other study (maybe one a materials strength) that health and lives depend upon when it comes to paleo papers. Nor apparently a fraud in this case. Me thinks this paper should be reinstated with a major correction to the errant parts.Â
GSPaul
-----Original Message-----
From: Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>
Cc: dinosaur-l@usc.edu <dinosaur-l@usc.edu>
Sent: Thu, Jul 23, 2020 3:00 am
Subject: Re: [dinosaur] RETRACTION: Oculudentavis, new smallest known Mesozoic bird in amber from Cretaceous of Myanmar
Gregory Paul wrote-
Â> 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.ÂThen we, the vert paleo community, say "that's an objective junior synonym of Oculudentavis, nice try attempting to subvert the ICZN, but that's not a valid move based on the rules."Â Just like we do for Owen trying to rename Basilosaurus Zeuglodon after he recognized it was a mammal.Â
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.
âMickey Mortimer