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

[Paul P <turtlecroc@yahoo.com>]

On Saturday, July 25, 2020, 09:18:37 PM UTC, Ben Creisler <bcreisler@gmail.com> 
wrote:

> the paper has become taxonomically unusable because it was retracted (as 
> opposed to simply corrected)


Again, and as suggested by David M, I don't think "retractions" per se make 
much sense, although they do happen. The cheetah paper mentioned by Tom H as an 
example was indeed "retracted"--several years later. All a retraction really 
does is alert people to ignore a given paper. But in this case, the name is 
valid and will always be available, if for nothing else than to cite as an 
example of what can happen when you rush something to press.

That said, there might be a loophole. The authors could declare the specimen 
nondiagnostic and the name a nomen dubium--I mean, it must not be terribly 
diagnostic or they would have realized it was a squamate and not a bird, 
right?--and then name that new, better specimen something more apropos. (and 
take a year to doublecheck everything instead of trying to make a big splash.)

Btw, how could Nature have initiated the retraction? Are you (Tom H) saying a 
third party informed Nature that the specimen wasn't a bird?

    Paul P.