Re: [dinosaur] RETRACTION: Oculudentavis, new smallest known Mesozoic bird in amber from Cretaceous of Myanmar

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

> I've never really heard a concise explanation of the taxonomic naming 
> process, even when I studied paleo in college.

There is no process. Sometime between becoming convinced they've found a new 
taxon and submitting the manuscript, the authors agree on a name, and that's 
it. Everybody does this differently.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have the tab open, so here's another quote from ICZN glossary:

>>
nomen oblitum (pl. nomina oblita), n.
    A Latin term (meaning "forgotten name") applied after 1 January 2000 to a 
name, unused since 1899, which as a result of an action taken under Article 
23.9.2 does not take precedence over a younger synonym or homonym in prevailing 
usage; the younger name which takes precedence over the nomen oblitum may be 
called a nomen protectum (q.v.). The term nomen oblitum was also applied to a 
disused senior synonym rejected between 6 November 1961 and 1 January 1973 
under Article 23b of the Code editions then in force (see Article 23.12.2). 
Nomina oblita remain available names; see Articles 23.9 and 23.12 for 
conditions controlling their use as valid names.

nomen protectum, n.
    A Latin term (meaning "protected name") applied to a name which has been 
given precedence over its unused senior synonym or senior homonym relegated to 
the status of nomen oblitum (q.v., and see Article 23.9.2).
<<

...and to make really sure, let's check Art. 23.9:

>>
23.9. Reversal of precedence 

In accordance with the purpose of the Principle of Priority [Art. 23.2], its 
application is moderated as follows:

23.9.1. prevailing usage must be maintained when the following conditions are 
both met:

23.9.1.1. the senior synonym or homonym has not been used as a valid name after 
1899, and

23.9.1.2. the junior synonym or homonym has been used for a particular taxon, 
as its presumed valid name, in at least 25 works, published by at least 10 
authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of not 
less than 10 years.
<<

Art. 23.9.2 states that if an author discovers that these conditions are all 
met, they can publish that fact, and then older name becomes a nomen oblitum 
while the younger one becomes a nomen protectum, without the Commission needing 
to do anything â although: "In the case of subjective synonymy, whenever the 
names are not regarded as synonyms the older name may be used as valid."

But Art. 23.9.1.1 says that Art. 23.9.2 can _never_ apply to this case and 
*Oculudentavis* can _never_ be a nomen oblitum, simply because the original 
retracted paper has already used the name as valid after 1899. That leaves only 
Art. 29.9.3:

>>
23.9.3. If the conditions of 23.9.1 are not met but nevertheless an author 
considers that the use of the older synonym or homonym would threaten stability 
or universality or cause confusion, and so wishes to maintain use of the 
younger synonym or homonym, he or she must refer the matter to the Commission 
for a ruling under the plenary power [Art. 81]. While the case is under 
consideration use of the junior name is to be maintained [Art. 82].
<<

Well, good luck arguing that the use of the name *Oculudentavis* "would 
threaten stability or universality or cause confusion". I think that would be 
the equivalent of a frivolous lawsuit.