Brontosaurus

[Chris J. Durden]

>Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 13:09:19 -0600
>To: lept-l at lists.yale.edu
>From: "Chris J. Durden" <drdn at mail.utexas.edu>
>Subject: Re: Brontosaurus
>In-Reply-To: <1001104075947.ZM3622 at Gochfeld>
>References: <Anne Kilmer <viceroy at gate.net>        "Re: Gillett's
Checkerspot" (Oct 27, 11:13am)>
<Pine.OSF.4.21.0010262328070.18414-100000 at aurora.uaf.edu>
<001401c03ff1$ec8e7080$9b0f1218 at gscrk1.sc.home.com>
<39F9833A.B4E9A150 at helsinki.fi> <39F99B87.32A054E3 at gate.net>
>
>Brontosaurus is a perfectly good vernacular name that is still in common
use. Most of us have at least a vague idea of what it looks like even if we
don't remember the correct generic name or what its new feet look like.
>  On the "50-year rule" - do we still have this silliness in the recent
revision of the ICZN code? It seems very presumptuous to give execeptional
standing to the name of one's own generation at the expense of the name of
one's father's or great-grandfather's generation! Is our half century
somehow more significant than our children's half century?
>  Rules can lead to nomenclatorial stability. Exceptions prolong the
agony. Let's stick with strict priority. *Amlystoma* or *Ambystoma*? *H.
charithonia* or *H. charitonius*?
>........Chris
>
>At 07:59  4/11/00 -0400, you wrote:
>>And yes, there was no excuse for changing "brontosaurus", it must have 
>>been covered under the 50 year rule (which I recall states that a name 
>>that has been used consistently in publications for 50 years, can be 
>>applied for as the correct name, even when someone discovers a prior 
>>name that has not been used). 
>>
>>M. Gochfeld
>>
>>  


 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl