|
I don't like this mindset because then the rules we follow become subjective choice, so why bother with rules at all and treat ICZN Articles as recommendations (which in turn would make ICZN Recommendations somehow even less meaningful...). The fact is the
ICZN has Articles to address these kinds of situations, and they should be used to keep everything official. In this regard, I approve of Yun bringing all of these known cases conveniently ignored by the community to the ICZN's attention. After all, if we
all agree that e.g. Lambeosaurus should be used over Procheneosaurus, that will be reflected in the letters to the BZN supporting this which will then sway the votes. Manospondylus gigas falls under Article 23.9.1 that makes it a nomen oblitum for not being
used as valid for over 50 years unlike the many examples of Tyrannosaurus rex being used as such. The Procheneosaurus case site states "Closed in BZN 76 (20 December 2019): 207. Title was in error (for Case 3802). Clarification of Case closure in BZN 77:
???", so does that indicate we'll be getting the explanation in a future volume?
Mickey Mortimer
From: dinosaur-l-request@mymaillists.usc.edu <dinosaur-l-request@mymaillists.usc.edu> on behalf of Mike Taylor <sauropoda@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 3:30 PM To: Tyler Greenfield <tgreenfield999@gmail.com> Cc: Ethan Schoales <ethan.schoales@gmail.com>; DML <dinosaur-l@usc.edu> Subject: Re: [dinosaur] Procheneosaurus
In situations like this, it's important to remember that zoological nomenclature is our servant, not our master. A century of usage has established that Lambeosaurus is the name of the animal in question: when the rules say that Procheneosaurus is the right
name, that rule is wrong. (Or, more precisely, that application of the rule is wrong.) The purpose of zoological nomenclature is to facilitate the ability to refer clearly and unambiguously to an animal: the name "Lambeosaurus" is clear and unambiguous, whereas
the name "Procheneosaurus" would only introduce confusion.
Much the same situation pertains with respect to Manospondylus gigas. Trying to bring that name into widespread use in place of Tyrannosaurus rex would arguably be technically "correct", but would be (A) doomed to failure, and (B) profoundly unhelpful if it
did somehow succeed.
Leave Procheneosaurus in its grave; do not disturb its remains.
-- Mike.
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 23:26, Tyler Greenfield <tgreenfield999@gmail.com> wrote:
|