Reintroducing the Phytosaur Genus Machaeoroprosopus

I had posted about the taxonomic problem caused by the loss of the holotype specimen Machaeroprosopus validus before with a plea for people to help look for the specimen.  Come to find out a careful reading of the literature and the ICZN demonstrates that the specimen is not as important as previously believed regarding the taxonomic status of the name Machaeroprosopus. It will take awhile for Triassic and phytosaur workers to get used to using the name again and I am sure that some will just flat out refuse, but according to the ICZN the name Machaeoroprosopus is the proper one if the holotype specimen of "Belodon" buceros is truly diagnosable and if the other nominal species of "Pseudopalatus" are referable to the same genus represented by "B." buceros.

Parker, W. G., Hungerbühler, A., and J. W. Martz. 2013. The taxonomic status of the phytosaurs (Archosauriformes) Machaeroprosopus and Pseudopalatus from the Late Triassic of the western United States. Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh First View Article. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1755691013000339

Abstract - The genus Machaeroprosopus has long been considered invalid because the type specimen of the Late Triassic phytosaur species, M. validus, has been lost. Re-examination of the primary literature regarding the establishment of the Late Triassic phytosaur genus Machaeroprosopus demonstrates that M. buceros is the correct type species, not M. validus. Thus, the genus level name Machaeroprosopus has priority over the genera Pseudopalatus and Arribasuchus and all nominal species should be reassigned. Reassignment of these species to Machaeroprosopus satisfies the requirements of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) and preserves historical context. The name Pseudopalatinae is retained as the valid clade name for these phytosaurs because its usage falls outside of the ICZN.

Neotype Proposal for Anchisaurus polyzelus

Galton, P.M. 2012. Case 3561 Anchisaurus Marsh, 1885 (Dinosauria, Sauropodomorpha): proposed conservation of usage by designation of a neotype for its type species Megadactylus polyzelus Hitchcock, 1865. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 69 (1): 44-50.



Abstract - The purpose of this application, under Article 75.5 of the Code, is to conserve the usage of the name Anchisaurus Marsh, 1885 (Lower Jurassic, Connecticut Valley, northeastern U.S.A.) that is based on Megadactylus polyzelus Hitchcock, 1865. It is proposed to replace the fragmentary and non-diagnostic holotype of M. polyzelus with a diagnostic neotype, an almost complete skull and skeleton (YPM 1883, holotype of A. colurus Marsh, 1891). This specimen has formed the basis for the concept of Anchisaurus, the first basal sauropodomorph genus from the U.S.A. and still the best represented from there since it was illustrated by Marsh (1892, 1893), and of A. polyzelus since it was illustrated by Galton (1976). Anchisaurus is the basis for ANCHISAURIDAE Marsh, 1885, the first basal sauropodomorph family to be named, and for the Anchisauria Galton & Upchurch, 2004.

Neotype Designation for the Early Jurassic Sauropodomorph Massospondylus carinatus

Adam Yates has a new post over at his blog Dracovenator, regarding the status of the type specimen of Massospondylus carinatus, and mentions this new paper that provides a neotype designation for this taxon. Unfortunately the Palaeontologia Africana website is woefully out of date and therefore I cannot provide an abstract or a link to this article.

Yates, A. M. and Barrett, P. M. 2011 (for 2010). Massospondylus carinatus Owen 1854 (Dinosauria, Sauropodomorpha): proposed conservation of usage by designation of a neotype. Palaeontologia Africana 45: 7-10.

Redescription of the Holotype Skull of the Late Triassic Rauisuchian Postosuchus kirkpatricki

I'm glad to see this out, the long awaited skull description of the rauisuchian Postosuchus kirkpatricki, which was previously only available in M.S. and PhD theses by Johnathan Weinbaum. The holotype skull was originally described by Chatterjee in 1985; however, repreparation of the material, including the removal of much matrix and plaster, has resulted in the determination of many new features.  It is an absolutely fantastic skull.

One thing I have always wondered is if P. kirkpatricki was named for the Kirkpatrick family, how come no one ever  amended the species name to P. kirkpatrickorum? Although such changes are no longer required by the ICZN, does this still apply to taxa named before the rule change occurred? 

Weinbaum, J.C.2011. The skull of Postosuchus kirkpatricki (Archosauria: Paracrocodyliformes) from the Upper Triassic of the United States. PaleoBios 30: (February 18, 2011)


Abstract - The skull of Postosuchus kirkpatricki Chatterjee 1985 is known from the holotype and paratype specimens along with disassociated skull elements from several Triassic localities in the southwestern and eastern United States. Recent preparation of the holotype skull allows for more careful examination of the cranial elements and comparison with related taxa. This description indicates that Postosuchus shares several previously unrecognized synapomorphies with crocodylomorphs, including fossae and foramina in the dermatocranium that are not present in other basal pseudosuchians. The sutural arrangements of the skull of Postosuchus presented in this paper differ considerably from previous descriptions, due in part to the reassignment of what was previously considered the prefrontal to the palpebral bone. Also, further preparation of skull elements revealed morphologies that differ from previous descriptions. This new description also indicates a close relationship with Polonosuchus silesiacus Sulej 2005. The only autapomorphic characters of the skull are a distinct, rounded lateral ridge on the maxilla and a foramen present in a large fossa on the anteromedial surface of the maxilla.

Koskinonodon it is!

Mueller (2007) noted that the name Buettneria Case 1922, for the large Late Triassic metoposaurid from the United States, was preoccupied, and recommended the next available name Koskinonodon Branson and Mehl 1929 as the replacement name for this taxon. 

Subsequently Lucas et al. (2007) petitioned the International Committee of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) to conserve this name.  Details of the case and  comments are available here (click expand on Case 3420).  The final opinion can be found here.


Main Reference:

Mueller, B. D. 2006. Koskinonodon Branson and Mehl, 1929, a replacement name for the preoccupied temnospondyl Buettneria Case, 1922. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 27:225.

Validity of Electronically Published New Taxonomic Names Redux: Posting Accepted Manuscripts

Sorry to dredge this up again, but I'd really like some input here from my readers.  In the past there has been much discussion of how new taxonomic names (i.e. genera and species) published solely in electronic format do not meet the requirements of the ICZN, nor will they meet the requirements of the most recent draft of PhyloCode when it is finally enacted. Journals such as PLoSONE and Palaeontologica Electronica have averted this by providing hard copy as well. However, past discussion has only discussed articles that are officially published.

A new dinosaurian taxon currently hitting the blogosphere is a ceratopsian dinosaur on exhibit at the Sam Noble Museum of Natural History in Norman, OK.  Norman hosted the annual SVP meeting less than a decade ago and many of us got to see this monster up close, it is quite amazing.  A recent blog post on this manuscript over at Love in the Time of Chasmosaurs (one of the best dino news blogs out there IMO, and thus this is not a critique of that post or the site) states that this new specimen has been published this week in the journal Cretaceous Research. However, a visit to the journal website shows that this paper is not in the most recent paper copy of the journal, nor is it even a finished paper published online in advance of print.  Instead it is currently only an accepted manuscript and still has to go through the steps of being assigned to a journal issue, not to mention the final proof stage.  Thus this new taxonomic name is still pretty far out from the final publication stage.  How far?  Depends on the journal.  Back around this time in 2006 I had a proposed taxonomic name in a paper that had been in the "accepted" stage for almost a year!  Most of you probably know how that situation ended.  "Accepted" technically is "in press", but until it has been assigned to an issue and the proof stage has been passed there really is no guarantee that the paper will be published anytime soon. Furthermore, various aspects of the paper, including the name, could still change at this stage.

What is to stop someone from providing a really quick publication through a faster outlet (including unfortunately something purportedly called "lulu press")? Nothing except personal ethics of individual researchers and maybe the fear that if someone ever did something so unscrupulous (after having seen the accepted paper) they would get called out by their peers.  It seems like a risk to me, especially as this is a specimen that has been on public display for years and there are numerous photos out there.

Also, what if the authors themselves think of a name (genus and/or species) they like better than the current one?  At this stage they could still change it. Although they still get the credit for the new name, the old name technically would still be available for another specimen in the future and could cause confusion if someone decided to use it. This does happen. For example, Adamanasuchus was a name originally proposed for the animal now known as Vancleavea.  It was published first as a nomen nudum in a 1983 issue of Arizona Highways magazine.  Lucas et al 2006 have since used this name (currently valid) for an aetosaur from the same stratigraphic horizon and geographical location.

Furthermore, a purview through the list of "in press" papers at Cretaceous Research shows that this is not the only newly proposed taxonomic name hanging out there.  I understand that the journal provides these papers early as a "service" to the readers, but given the taxonomic rules we all abide by that provides the accepted name to the first published in PRINT, I feel that the journals are taking a chance on our hard work going into this research.  Sorry but a DOI reference still does not count.

I like readers opinions on this type of extreme early "publishing".  Am a sounding overly cautious?  Maybe, but I personally don't feel like getting burned twice nor seeing any other researcher burned as well. I you believe testimony given in my past case you might argue that having the name out early might have averted the whole situation; however, knowing the whole history of what really happened I'm not buying it and neither should you.

[P.S. I've mentioned Aetogate as an example of what could happen and really don't want this to degenerate into a discussion of that particular case.  What I really want to know is if people really think it is a good idea to put new taxonomic names out there in the accepted manuscript stage where they have no protection against the priority rules in taxonomic nomenclature].

Kudos to PLOS ONE

The latest dinosaur paper causing a buzz on the blogosphere is a new paper by Hocknull et al. describing three new dinosaurs (two sauropods and one theropod) from the Middle Cretaceous of Australia. Because the paper is Open Access you can download and read it for free from here. Other blog coverage includes bits from SVPOW (of course) and The Open Source Paleontologist. In the later post Andy Farke briefly mentions that this new article makes clear statements to establish the nomenclatural availability of the newly proposed taxonomic names. If you remember this topic recently caused some intense discussion on Carl Zimmer's blog The Loom regarding the early primate Darwinius. I also covered it briefly here, and subsequently the journal PLOS ONE, which is an open access online only publication, took steps to ensure the taxonomic availability of Darwinius and then went back and did the same for other new taxa which it had published.

Well it looks like PLOS ONE clearly has their act together now regarding the ICZN rules. A section in the new Hocknull et al. paper explicitly lists the libraries where paper copies of the article have been distributed (satisfying ICZN Article 8.6). Furthermore, interested parties can order paper copies for $10 from PLOS ONE. I find this last bit interesting. Of course, with open access papers you can download and print off your own copy; however, in many cases you are at the mercy of the print quality of your printer. Now for a modest fee ($10 in this case) you can get a printed (hopefully reprint quality) copy sent to you. I'm definitely one of the older crowd who still has a hard time reading off a computer screen and love holding an actually printed copy in my hands. Now I may not fork out the $10 for this particular article given that I'm currently not working on Cretaceous sauropods, but if I were I would think that $10 is worth a good hard copy of a 51 page monograph (assuming this is post paid and the quality is good).

Anyhow, kudos to PLOS ONE (and the authors) for recognizing the need to adhere to the current ICZN rules and being so quick to sort out the problem and go above and beyond in solving it. This clearly demonstrates one of the reasons why PLOS ONE is quickly becoming a major player in paleontology publications.

REFERENCE

Hocknull, S.A., White, M.A., Tischler, T.R., Cook, A.G., Calleja, N.D., Sloan, T., and D.A. Elliott. 2009. New Mid-Cretaceous (Latest Albian) Dinosaurs from Winton, Queensland, Australia. PLoS ONE 4: e6190. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006190

Here we go again: redux.

Yesterday I commented on the status of taxonomic names published in online only journals and received from great comments. In my post I linked to a similar article by Carl Zimmer on his blog "The Loom". Read here to see the follow-up after he contacted the ICZN. In a nutshell until the ICZN rules change or another code is adopted these names are not valid. Another possibility (as suggested by Brian Axsmith) is for PLoS One to follow what Palaeontologia Electronica does... deposit print copies in at least five libraries and openly state where the copies are located. This makes the name valid according to the ICZN.

By the way...some were worried that because the online article is not recognized by the ICZN, then the first print medium (e.g., newspapers, magazines) that "publish" the name would gain priority. However, ICZN rules also state (and unfortunately I don't have my copy nearby as I am typing this) that the article in which the name first appears must intend to actually erect a new taxonomic name. The authors of newspaper and popular magazine do not have this intent and therefore do not "officially" erect the name except as a nomen nudem. Nomina nuda have no status and thus are still available for the authors of the official publication.

Postscript: Check out this comment on The Loom from Peter Binfeld, the managing editor of PLos One. Way to go guys, but unfortunately this is just one case. For more discussion see this post on DinoGoss.

I've missed Mike Taylor's comment on Rioarribasimius....can anyone tell me where it was made?

Here We Go Again: Darwinius, the ICZN, and the Online Publication of Taxonomic Names

I brought this up back in February regarding the new stegosaur Miragaia longicollum; about how regardless of the claims made by journals, unless the guidelines put forth by the International Committee of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) regarding publication are adhered to (i.e., hard copy placed in at least five libraries that are explicitly identified in the document) published names in online only publications are simply not valid. Now a similar case is coming under heavy discussion.

The newly described primate Darwinius masillae (Franzen et al., 2009) has been receiving tons of press heralded as being a 'missing link' in primate evolution (however see this article in Laelaps), however, it is not only the phylogentic position and its interpretation that is being hotly debated. Now the validity of the taxonomic name is being called into question because the name was published in the online-only journal PLoS One. Carl Zimmer's blog The Loom has a great discussion of this. Check it out.

Hopefully the ICZN will soon amend the code as advocated by Harris (2004) to deal with the increasing trend of online only journals and the early online releases (ahead of print versions) now popular with many journals.

This is becoming a serious problem.

REFERENCES

Franzen, J., Gingerich, P., Habersetzer, J., Hurum, J., von Koenigswald, W., & Smith, B. (2009). Complete Primate Skeleton from the Middle Eocene of Messel in Germany: Morphology and Paleobiology PLoS ONE, 4 (5) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005723

Harris, J.D. 2004. 'Published Works' in the electronic age: recommended amendments to Articles 8 and 9 of the Code. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 61:138-148.

Early On-line Publications and Establishing Taxonomic Names

I may have not been paying attention lately but when I was downloading the new paper yesterday on the new stegosaur Miragaia from the Royal Society website I noticed something at the bottom of the download cover sheet that surprised me as I do not recall seeing anything like this previously.

Advance online articles have been peer reviewed and accepted for publication but have not yet appeared in the paper journal (edited, typeset versions may be posted when available prior to final publication). Advance online articles are citable and establish publication priority; they are indexed by PubMed from initial publication. Citations to Advance online articles must include the digital object identifier (DOIs) and date of initial publication.

So the editors of the Proceedings of the Royal Society B are claiming that new taxon names such as Miragaia longicollum are established upon publication online, so in this specific case M. longicollum was established on February 25, 2009 and until the article comes out in print it is cited with this date (I have fixed this in my previous post and am glad that they explicitly state how to cite an advance article).

What does the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) say about this? Jerry Harris had an article a few years back (Harris, 2004) where he recommended amendments to Articles 8 and 9 of the code to accommodate DOIs and advance online publications. Specifically this would deal with Articles 8.6, which states that on-line publications must deposit hard copies “in at least 5 major publicly accessible libraries which are identified by name in the work itself” and Article 9.8 which states that “text or illustrations distributed by means of electronic signals” do not constitute valid work (ICZN, 1999). Thus, according to the ICZN, the name would not be valid until the printed version is made available to the public (unless an amendment has already been made, which I am unaware of). Countering this Harris (2004) argued that on-line publications met the availability criteria and that DOIs provide unique, archived identifiers that fix the date of publication, and thus proposed:

“I propose to the Commission that, under Article 78.3 ('Amendments to the Code'), Articles 8 and 9 of the current Code require both pro- and retroactive (to the effective date of the Fourth Edition, I January 2000) modification to accommodate the following issue: documents published electronically with DOl numbers and that are followed by hard-copy printing and distribution be exempt from Article 9.8 and be recognized as valid, citable sources of zoological taxonomic information and that their electronic publication dates be considered definitive. Note that this does not require electronic publications to have DOl numbers; only that any paper appearing in electronic format that does have a DOl number, and is followed by traditional, hard-copy issuance, is an acceptable place for the appearance of zoological nomenclatural action. Electronic publications lacking DOl numbers lack the citability benefits enjoyed by DOl registered documents and, regardless of whether followed by hard-copy release, will still be subject to Article 9.8 and be considered invalid for zoological nomenclatural actions. Such a change may be issued as a Declaration (Article 78.3.3 and subject to the provisions of Article 80.1), since it entails only minor changes to Articles 8.1.3 and 9.8, as follows (recommended additions in italics): Article 8.1.3. It must have been produced in an edition containing simultaneously obtainable copies by a method that assures numerous identical and durable copies, including documents that contain identical Digital Object Identifier numbers and for which electronic documents are followed by hard-copy release. Article 9.8. Text or illustrations distributed by means of electronic signals (e.g. by means of the World Wide Web), except where such material meets the provisions of Article 8.1.3”.

Given all of this, I want to know does the statement by The Royal Society fix the publication date for the name Miragaia longicollum as February 25, 2009?

As a side note check out Adam Yates comments at Dracovenator on the taxonomic name of this specimen.

Harris, J.D. 2004. 'Published Works' in the electronic age: recommended amendments to
Articles 8 and 9 of the Code. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 61:138-148.

International Committee of Zoological Nomenclature. 1999. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 4th Edition. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London, 126 pp.