Talk:Angloposeidon

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Angloposeidon redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Dinosaurs

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles

Palaeontology

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles

Not a nomen nudum anymore?[edit]

Angloposeidon is apparently not a nomen nudum anymore, since the name was published in Darren Naish's new book: "A very long chapter on MIWG.7306 - the large brachiosaur vertebra known affectionately as 'Angloposeidon' - means that the name 'Angloposeidon' is now (shock horror) in print. More importantly, the full back-story to the paper that I and colleagues eventually published on the specimen (Naish et al. 2004) is revealed in full."[1] FunkMonk (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a nomen nudum is a name that lacks a formal description rather than one that's not been printed before. Does Naish formally describe it in the book? Abyssal (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just ordered the book today, so I don't know, but from what he wrote in the blog, it seems that it might have some kind of nomenclatural consequence. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's what he means by in print. Previously it had only been mentioned as a nickname online, right? For it to be anything other than a nomen nudum it would have to accompany a formal description or be followed by gen. nov or some other indication that it's supposed to be a valid taxon. Otherwise Sue would also be a valid junior synonym of Tyrannosaurus. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it isn't named correctly then, but why would he say "shock horror" (I know it's sarcastic) if it doesn't mean anything? FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because of the length of time that the name has been coined but not discussed in print, but I', just guessing. Abyssal (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I took it to mean more along the lines of "this questionable nickname is rearing it's ugly head again, and for the first time in print!" MMartyniuk (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that I think about it I'm not sure a name published only online can even be considered a nomen nudum according to the ICZN. A Nomen nudum is a name which has been published with inadequate description or notice that it's meant to form a new taxon. But the code doesn't consider anything posted online as "published," so 'legally' speaking, "Angloposeidon" didn't exist even as a nomen nudum until 2010. Neither does "Amphicoelias brontodiplodocus" or simply the specimen nickname "Brontodiplodocus," both of which I've already seen listed as nomina nuda on some sites. Those names aren't in print, so they can't be nomina nuda. As far as the ICZN is concerned, the internet doesn't exist. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]