Re: [dinosaur] Procheneosaurus

[Tim Williams <tijawi@gmail.com>]

The ICZN has made it clear that it is not in the business of policing
the usage of names.  If the community chooses to ignore a particular
name, then the ICZN cannot do anything about it - and nor does it want
to.  If asked (via petition) the ICZN will rule on whether a
particular name is available or not, according to the Code.  But the
ICZN can't compel the community to use the name.

In fact, in certain instances, the ICZN supports the community
ignoring the Code.  For example, in Case 2531 the ICZN basically
stated it has no power to stop rogue taxonomy, and instead tacitly
encouraged the community to boycott those names produced by rogue
taxonomists.

I'm not saying that _Procheneosaurus_ is a rogue name.  But it is a
name that the community can choose to ignore.  In doing so, the
community is conforming to the spirit of the Code.  _Lambeosaurus_ has
prevailing usage, and there's no reason to reject it in favor of
_Procheneosaurus_ because of the erroneous belief that the Code must
be obeyed at all costs.




On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:10 PM Mike Taylor <sauropoda@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 12:04, Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> 
> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> I understand your disquiet, but this is the reality. The ICZN has no power to 
> do anything but recommend. It's great to have it there, but the truth is 
> always that the nomenclature in actual use is determined by what people 
> actually use â in fact, it's more than truth, it's tautology. So there is 
> simply no value in stirring up confusion about Procheneosaurus, as there is 
> zero chance of the global community switching away from Lambeosaurus to that 
> name.
>
> -- Mike.
>