paleonet Re: Dinosaur Genera List update #182

["Andrew Rindsberg" <arindsberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

First, thanks to George "Dinogeorge" Olshevsky for keeping us up to date on
new dinosaur taxa. I wish all fossil groups were so well attended!

George writes,
>One small problemette: two spellings of the new genus are provided in
the paper and they are used interchangeably. In the systematic
palaeontology section, the new genus is given as Agnosphitys
whereas - immediately below - the new species within this genus is
given as Agnostiphys [sic] cromhallensis!! Whoops. Because
Agnosphitys is first in the paper, I recommend this is the one we use
(unless the authors intended otherwise). Etymology seems a bit vague:
'Greek, unknown or uncertain, with reference to the position of the
new form relative ot the Dinosauria'.

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature recommends that page
priority be used only as the last resort, all other considerations being
equal. In this case, I would cut the Gordian knot and ask the author.
Sometimes, I think, we are too used to dealing with papers as "papers" and
not as the work of living people. As to the statement about etymology, I
appreciate the joke, but surely the editor must have been asleep!

Andrew K. Rindsberg
Geological Survey of Alabama