Tyrannosauridae usage (ICZN Opinion) + 2024 fossil finds + prosauropods + "Teen Rex" update + marine reptiles +

433 views
Skip to first unread message

Ben Creisler

unread,
Jan 3, 2025, 4:38:12 PM1/3/25
to DinosaurMa...@googlegroups.com
Ben Creisler
bcre...@gmail.com

Some recent items:

Free pdf:

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (2024)
Opinion 2511 (Case 3815) – TYRANNOSAURIDAE Osborn, 1906 (Dinosauria, Theropoda): usage conserved by reversing precedence with DEINODONTIDAE Cope, 1866 and DRYPOTOSAURIDAE Marsh, 1890
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 81: 156-157
https://www.biotaxa.org/bzn/article/view/86727/81465


The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has used its plenary power to conserve the family-group name Tyrannosauridae Osborn, 1906 by giving it precedence over Deinodontidae Cope, 1866 and Dryptosauridae Marsh, 1890 whenever it is considered to be a synonym of either of the two.

===
===

Top fossil discoveries of 2024 (mainly dinos)

===

Prosauropod rehab

===

Paleontologists Discover New Species of Sauropodomorph Dinosaur in China

===

Tyrannosaur Teeth Fuel Rare Fossil Find in England

===

Denver paleontologists learning from rare ‘Teen Rex’ specimen about dinosaur’s life

===

What Was the Most Intelligent Dinosaur in History? Or the Most Intelligent Ones?

====

Major new footprint discoveries on Britain's 'dinosaur highway'


***

UK's biggest ever dinosaur footprint site discovered | BBC News

BBC News (video)
8 min.

===

Think you know what dinosaurs were like? Think again (with Professor Jack Tseng)
UC Berkeley Podcast
18 min.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqShziP6zwU

===

Brandon Peecook: Dinosaur Discoveries in the Pacific Northwest.
NARG Mtg 10/24  (video)
46 min.

===

Free text:

Scott A. Lee & Justyna Slowiak (2025)
Sauntering Sauropods: The Preferred Walking Speeds of the Largest Land Animals That Ever Lived
Physics Teacher 63: 20–22 (2025)
doi: https://doi.org/10.1119/5.0187569
https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/pte/article/63/1/20/3328600/Sauntering-Sauropods-The-Preferred-Walking-Speeds


Motion is a fundamental part of every introductory physics course. Here we present the exciting example of calculating the walking speed of sauropod dinosaurs via the inverted pendulum model1 of walking by using kinematics, Newton’s second law of motion (in rotational form), and simple harmonic motion. This methodology is first applied to humans, horses of various sizes, and the elephant Elephas maximus to demonstrate its validity and to provide an estimate of the uncertainties associated with this simple model of walking. The students then find that the enormous sauropod dinosaurs (the largest animals that have ever lived on land) walked at speeds very similar to modern animals. A human would have been able to walk alongside even the largest sauropod with relative ease.


===

Dino Birds (NOVA premiering February 5, 2025 at 9 pm on PBS)
Fossils reveal how birds survived the killer asteroid and became today’s only living dinosaurs.

===
===

=====

A new species of Carinodens from the end Cretaceous of Morocco and mosasaur hyperdiversity

===

Dinosaur Surf or Turf: Unpacking Mesozoic Misconceptions (about marine reptiles)

===

Paleontologists Unearth What May Be Largest Known Mesosaurs

====
====

Iaremys, flat-headed turtle that lived among dinosaurs (in Spanish)
Descubren fósiles de una tortuga con cabeza chata que vivía entre los dinosaurios

====
====

Non-dino:

These Are The Coolest Fossils From 2024
SciShow (video)
14 min.

====

8 Fossil Discoveries That Changed Our Understanding Of Life On Earth
Sometimes pivotal palaeontology means discovering the world's oldest butt worm.

====

TAPIRS WITHOUT TRUNKS
Prehistoric Parade with Dr. Donald Prothero (video)
9 min.

===

Fossil Crates 2024 Paleoartist Awards

Jura

unread,
Jan 3, 2025, 5:04:39 PM1/3/25
to Dinosaur Mailing Group
Five years! It took five years for the ICZN to rule on something that everyone already was fine with. I really don't see the point of this coalition anymore. 

Jason

Gregory Paul

unread,
Jan 3, 2025, 6:59:58 PM1/3/25
to dinosaurma...@googlegroups.com
Took 12 years for them to OK my and Ken's shifting the effective type of Allosaurus fragilis to the nearly complete USNM specimen from the same quarry as the fragmentary holotype. They have funding and personal issues. 

GSPaul

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dinosaur Mailing Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to DinosaurMailingG...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/30a63c9f-f078-4c23-9ed9-57314c898f27n%40googlegroups.com
.

Tim Williams

unread,
Jan 4, 2025, 2:07:44 AM1/4/25
to DinosaurMa...@googlegroups.com
Jura <arch...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Five years! It took five years for the ICZN to rule on something that everyone already was fine with. I really don't see the point of this coalition anymore. 

Fortunately, in this case the ICZN decision was the 'correct' one.  But if the ICZN had ruled the other way (i.e. that Deinodontidae has precedence over Tyrannosauridae)... would any paleontologist have gone along with it?

Although likely well-intentioned, the original application was not necessary, since the prevailing usage of Tyrannosauridae wasn't really threatened by either Deinodontidae or Dryptosauridae.  And as the ICZN itself has made clear in the past (Opinion 2468 / Case 3601), matters of nomenclatural priority can be sorted out by the scientific community at large.

Ethan Schoales

unread,
Jan 4, 2025, 2:17:09 AM1/4/25
to DinosaurMa...@googlegroups.com
Now, we already had a discussion about this issue (regarding Procheneosaurus) in 2020, and that probably wasn’t the first.


Tim, what do you think the ICZN should be spending their time on?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dinosaur Mailing Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to DinosaurMailingG...@googlegroups.com.

Mickey Mortimer

unread,
Jan 4, 2025, 3:59:16 AM1/4/25
to Dinosaur Mailing Group
"Although likely well-intentioned, the original application was not necessary, since the prevailing usage of Tyrannosauridae wasn't really threatened by either Deinodontidae or Dryptosauridae."

I disagree. There's no point to having rules if they're not going to be followed, and this is exactly the situation that the rules were made for. It's good that Yun is doing the work to make these things official. Would you rather we just go on forever saying "Yeah, Deinodontidae should technically have priority, but the community just ignores this"? That's lazy and sloppy.

"And as the ICZN itself has made clear in the past (Opinion 2468 / Case 3601), matters of nomenclatural priority can be sorted out by the scientific community at large"

I think everybody involved with that case views it as the Commission abandoning its duty and purpose. Can you imagine any legal system concluding "the Commission has declined to use its powers to confirm what is obvious"? *insert US Supreme Court or impeachment joke here*

Now we need Yun to petition on Podokesauridae and Procompsognathidae vs. Coelophysidae, and Noasauridae vs. Abelisauridae...

Mickey Mortimer

Maxwell Miles Candlen

unread,
Jan 4, 2025, 6:05:25 AM1/4/25
to DinosaurMa...@googlegroups.com
“Now we need Yun to petition on Podokesauridae and Procompsognathidae vs. Coelophysidae, and Noasauridae vs. Abelisauridae...”

Podokesaurus Project guy here, we aim to resolve the former issue along with our redescription of Podokesaurus. For anyone who didn’t see our SVP abstract or talk to us there, we currently support Podokesaurus as a diagnostic early-branching theropod, but not necessarily a coelophysid (or perhaps even coelophysoid, seeing as how some recent analyses have pulled more and more species out of that group.) Whether the ICZN need be involved is TBD; we’d prefer to hold off until our work is through, as well as complementary work on new and (especially) historical German material.

Maxwell Miles Candlen


Skye McDavid

unread,
Jan 4, 2025, 10:37:55 AM1/4/25
to DinosaurMa...@googlegroups.com
I think reversal of precedence between Deinodontidae and Tyrannosauridae was necessary, but the reversal of precedence between Dryptosauridae and Tyrannosauridae is bizarre and unnecessary, though not detrimental. Dryptosauridae and Tyannosauridae are not synonymous (with Dryptosauridae having occasionally been used for Dryptosaurus  alone to the exclusion of Tyrannosauridae, e.g. Carpeneter et al. 1997 or applied to a hypothesized clade of seemingly Appalachian-endemic Tyrannosauroids, e.g. Brownstein 2021). ICZN Art. 35.5 would have been sufficient to preserve Tyrannosauroidea and was invoked for this purpose by Brusatte et al. 2011. I actually had a half-baked manuscript of a comment that I was planning to send to the ICZN supporting reversal of precedence between Deinodontidae and Tyrannosauridae but not Dryptosauridae; I assumed I had more time to work on it because Allosaurus took 11 years.

I'm hoping that Candlen & Wilhelm can sort out Podokesauridae - arguably it is historically a wastebasket taxon uniting miscellaneous reptiles, e.g. Nopcsa 1928 listing Coelophysis (at the time a chimera), Podokesaurus, Procerosaurus [not sure what this one is, but I don't think it's a lapsus of Proceratosaurus because he diagnoses the group based on caudals], Saltopus, and Tanystropheus.

Procompsognathidae is a can of worms that's been on my to do list for a while, but I have enough higher-priority stuff on my plate to last me a while.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/CABGPJuRPNm-9Ks%3DG_DGeG0zUgGk23vRUsYobQOFZBua2NOKjqQ%40mail.gmail.com.


--
Skye McDavid
(she/her)
This message was sent at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to reply outside of your normal working hours.

John D'Angelo

unread,
Jan 4, 2025, 11:16:35 AM1/4/25
to DinosaurMa...@googlegroups.com
In my opinion, the only purpose for a system of rules such as the ICZN is as a dispute resolution mechanism. If there is uncertainty or dispute over the correct name to use for a taxon, refer to the ICZN to figure out what the correct thing to do is, but there's no need to go looking for problems when there's already a consensus over correct usage. It is nonetheless good that the Deinodontidae vs. Tyrannosauridae problem has been resolved, as it will hopefully prevent any future attempts to disrupt nomenclature and violate the spirit of the ICZN by arguing its letter.

I believe that the Noasauridae vs. Abelisauridae problem is covered by article 35.5, so there is no need for a petition. Abelisauroidea has precedence over Noasauroidea at superfamily rank because prevailing usage is to treat Noasauridae as a family of Abelisauroidea. The same applies to Saltasauridae Powell, 1992 and Opisthocoelicaudiinae McIntosh, 1990, incidentally.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/CABrjrNHn56_o8scY%3DAEf_sAbmKAEnpA0JaS6GBGg3fMruDQUtA%40mail.gmail.com.

Tim Williams

unread,
Jan 4, 2025, 9:07:40 PM1/4/25
to DinosaurMa...@googlegroups.com
Mickey Mortimer <therizino...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I disagree. There's no point to having rules if they're not going to be followed, and this is exactly the situation that the rules were made for. It's good that Yun is doing the work to make these things
> official. Would you rather we just go on forever saying "Yeah, Deinodontidae should technically have priority, but the community just ignores this"? That's lazy and sloppy.

Are "we" actually saying this?  

I agree with John D'Angelo: the ICZN exists to resolve uncertainty or dispute over the correct name to use for a taxon.  This includes when the stability of a genus necessitates the designation of a new type species or specimen (such as the recently mentioned _Allosaurus fragilis_ case).  

But when prevailing usage of a family-level name is not endangered, why rock the boat?  When these applications to the ICZN are made, there is no guarantee that the Commission will rule in your favor.  

Personally, I'd prefer that the ICZN stay out of the business of family-level taxa, and just stick to genus and species names.  In the current age of phylogenetic nomenclature, it's not helpful that those clades that are also families (or subfamilies and superfamilies) are subjected to the Code's outdated principles of priority regarding coordinated family-level taxa.

> I think everybody involved with that case views it as the Commission abandoning its duty and purpose.

On the contrary, Opinion 2468 (Case 3601) is an example of the Commission fulfilling its duty and purpose, as it sees it.  This decision isn't a bug - it's the default setting.  This was made clear by Krell (2021) in The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 78:61-67: "Contemporary works with controversial taxonomy and available nomenclatural acts are better taken care of by the scientific community and resolved in the long term by prevailing usage rather than trying to declare them unavailable or seeking suppression of such works by the ICZN."  (BTW, Krell also made it clear he was no fan of the subject of Case 3601; Krell's pragmatic approach is a way to accommodate the self-imposed limitations of the Code.)


> Can you imagine any legal system concluding "the Commission has declined to use its powers to confirm what is obvious"?

The Commission is not a legal system, nor is it a police force.  The Commission is entirely reactive, and only responds (not exactly with alacrity) to submitted applications.


> *insert US Supreme Court or impeachment joke here*

Too soon. 

> Now we need Yun to petition on Podokesauridae and Procompsognathidae vs. Coelophysidae, and Noasauridae vs. Abelisauridae...

But do we really?  Do we want the ICZN playing whack-a-mole with every historical family name that pops up?  For example, do we need the ICZN to tell us whether or not Diplodocidae is the preferred family/clade name to Atlantosauridae?  I get the impression that when it comes to prevailing usage, the ICZN would prefer to let sleeping dogs lie.  This is the take-home message of Opinion 2468 (Case 3601).

Ethan Schoales

unread,
Jan 4, 2025, 9:11:23 PM1/4/25
to DinosaurMa...@googlegroups.com
No legal court would ever say it would leave the duty of dealing with criminals and illegal activities to the public. But, while the ICZN is similar to a legal court in some ways, it differs in that it says exactly that. Of course, the ICZN doesn’t (usually) deal with things like nomenclatural murderers or property damage.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dinosaur Mailing Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to DinosaurMailingG...@googlegroups.com.

Tim Williams

unread,
Jan 5, 2025, 12:33:47 AM1/5/25
to DinosaurMa...@googlegroups.com
Ethan Schoales <ethan.s...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Tim, what do you think the ICZN should be spending their time on?

I'll answer in the following way...

If you want to determine which name has precedence, you have two options: (1) Submit an application to the Commission, and let them decide; or (2) stick to prevailing usage.  I would say that (2) is the better option.  What's more, the Commission thinks (2) is the better option.  They have made this clear.

Ethan Schoales

unread,
Jan 5, 2025, 12:34:56 AM1/5/25
to DinosaurMa...@googlegroups.com
That doesn’t really answer my question, but you did already answer it by saying they should resolve type species disputes…

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dinosaur Mailing Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to DinosaurMailingG...@googlegroups.com.

Matthew Martyniuk

unread,
Jan 5, 2025, 4:36:43 AM1/5/25
to DinosaurMa...@googlegroups.com
“I agree with John D'Angelo: the ICZN exists to resolve uncertainty or dispute over the correct name to use for a taxon.  This includes when the stability of a genus necessitates the designation of a new type species or specimen (such as the recently mentioned _Allosaurus fragilis_ case).”

I think one role of the ICZN is being overlooked, and that is preservation of *authorship* priority. Like it or not there is a certain prestige associated with authorship of new nomenclature, and the expectation that a name you coined will live on into the future in perpetuity. So, part of the ICZN’s function is to settle cases of unclear priority. If two names are found to be synonymous and they were published nearly simultaneously, which one sticks around? This is important not just in order to make sure everyone uses the same name and can communicate clearly, but to make sure the author of that taxon retains credit into posterity. If one author sniped another and named your species in a footnote before you had a chance to publish, they should rule against that name. There is also a risk that a generation or two down the line, a name you publish for a taxon will be replaced and forgotten simply because a new one based on a more complete specimen published by a more influential figure comes along. Because of this, maybe the ICZN should be *more* active in officially suppressing obvious junior synonyms before they have a chance to become widely but incorrectly accepted by the professional community. Tyrannosauridae replaced Deinodontidae originally because one researcher stated you cannot name a family-level taxon after a tooth-based genus or a dubious genus. He was incorrect (we still have Ceratopsidae and Troodontidae), but nobody called him out on it, and here we are.

Matt M.

On Sat, Jan 4, 2025 at 9:07 PM Tim Williams <tij...@gmail.com> wrote:
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dinosaur Mailing Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to DinosaurMailingG...@googlegroups.com.

Ethan Schoales

unread,
Jan 5, 2025, 5:05:00 AM1/5/25
to DinosaurMa...@googlegroups.com
Matt, don’t you think we should use a bunch of old taxon names instead of their modern counterparts?

Matthew Martyniuk

unread,
Jan 5, 2025, 7:57:32 AM1/5/25
to DinosaurMa...@googlegroups.com
No, I don’t. But the reason we have “old” and “new” taxon names is because the principle of priority was misinterpreted in the past and the ICZN did nothing to correct the error.

Thomas Richard Holtz

unread,
Jan 5, 2025, 9:18:59 AM1/5/25
to DinosaurMa...@googlegroups.com
Folks, you all realize that the ICZN is just a bunch of folks who are volunteering some time to rule on things, right? You realize that it isn't their day job? That they have professional lives (and personal lives), and aren't meeting every day where ruling on taxonomic issues is their highest priority?

Just checking,

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/CAEAznyUWzSCghTO3u%2BBD8p6zC0DqOAgz-NhAA9RVW2quVhBw%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com.


--

Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Email: tho...@umd.edu         Phone: 301-405-4084
Principal Lecturer, Vertebrate Paleontology

Office: CHEM 1225B, 8051 Regents Dr., College Park MD 20742

Dept. of Geology, University of Maryland
http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/

Phone: 301-405-6965
Fax: 301-314-9661              

Faculty Director, Science & Global Change Program, College Park Scholars

Office: Centreville 1216, 4243 Valley Dr., College Park MD 20742
http://www.geol.umd.edu/sgc
Fax: 301-314-9843

Mailing Address: 

                        Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
                        Department of Geology
                        Building 237, Room 1117

                        8000 Regents Drive
                        University of Maryland
                        College Park, MD 20742-4211 USA

Tim Williams

unread,
Jan 5, 2025, 9:59:50 PM1/5/25
to DinosaurMa...@googlegroups.com
Matthew Martyniuk <mpmar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Because of this, maybe the ICZN should be *more* active in officially suppressing obvious junior synonyms before they have a chance to become widely but incorrectly
> accepted by the professional community. Tyrannosauridae replaced Deinodontidae originally because one researcher stated you cannot name a family-level taxon after a
> tooth-based genus or a dubious genus. He was incorrect (we still have Ceratopsidae and Troodontidae), but nobody called him out on it, and here we are.

Two (quick) thoughts:
* Is it necessarily a bad thing that Tyrannosauridae is used instead of Deinodontidae?
* Although a family-level taxon can be named after a tooth-based genus or a dubious genus, it may not always be the best idea to do so.  (This point was made by Russell,1970).

Matthew Martyniuk

unread,
Jan 6, 2025, 6:04:43 AM1/6/25
to DinosaurMa...@googlegroups.com
1. It’s not necessarily a good or bad thing. The question is do we value the principle of priority or should each generation of researchers just use the names they like best. This gets to the core issue of the utility of having any code at all. Who cares if the name Apatosaurus is older than Brontosaurus? Who cares if Ingenia is preoccupied by an invertebrate? In this day and age nobody is going to be confused. If you are going to have a code to follow you should follow it. If you are going to just do what you like and then wait for the code to play catch-up with your preferences then I agree with those who say it is useless and should be abandoned.

2. Russel 1970 is exactly what I’m talking about. His argument had nothing to do with the ICZN, and almost everyone started following his suggestion within ten years. Now the ICZN is playing (needless?) catch-up with a decision the community made 50 years ago. That it is totally arbitrary is proven by the fact we still have Ceratopsidae and Troodontidae. An attempt was made to replace the latter (also by Russel I think? To Saurornithoididae in the 80s?) but for whatever reason that one didn’t stick. So the ICZN is not currently suppressing Troodontidae despite the fact it is an identical situation with the same original author and the same replacement author! So I guess who needs the ICZN at all? Why even bother to replace names preoccupied by invertebrates? That is an arbitrary ICZN rule, and they should serve the community right? Based on cases like Megapnosaurus and Ajancingenia it’s more trouble than it’s worth. Doesn’t the principle of priority itself cause needless headaches? What use is it when the internet exists?

Matt

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dinosaur Mailing Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to DinosaurMailingG...@googlegroups.com.

Tim Williams

unread,
Jan 6, 2025, 7:27:17 AM1/6/25
to DinosaurMa...@googlegroups.com
For matters of availability and priority, many nomenclature issues can be dealt with by the scientific community, without the need for the Commission to be involved.  It's not just me saying this.  This is what the Commission has said.

The Commission can only tell you what is or isn't compliant with the Code.  They cannot force you to obey the Code.  For example, if the scientific community chooses to ignore an available name because its publication was unethical, the Commission won't stand in the way.

Thomas Richard Holtz

unread,
Jan 6, 2025, 8:52:55 AM1/6/25
to DinosaurMa...@googlegroups.com
> Now the ICZN is playing (needless?) catch-up with a decision the community made 50 years ago.

Let's make this clear, though: the ICZN doesn't go out looking for stuff to rule on. It has to be a petition from someone. In this case, it was an independent researcher who submitted a petition no one was calling for.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/CAEAznyVhUVpkWyJHi0_1bxRCha%3Df8Q8weQphmaT-Dh_VdqBvsw%40mail.gmail.com.

Tim Williams

unread,
Jan 6, 2025, 11:30:05 PM1/6/25
to DinosaurMa...@googlegroups.com
Matthew Martyniuk <mpmar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That is an arbitrary ICZN rule, and they should serve the community right? Based on cases like Megapnosaurus and Ajancingenia it’s more trouble than it’s worth.
> Doesn’t the principle of priority itself cause needless headaches?

Yes.  On the subject of 'headaches', _Ajancingenia_ (the replacement name for preoccupied _Ingenia_) is an interesting case. It's well known that the publication in which this name appeared raised quite a few concerns:  theropoddatabase.blogspot.com/2013/11/theropod-database-information-on.html?m=1

If a petition was submitted to the ICZN to have the name _Ajancingenia_ suppressed, it would fail.  The name is compliant with the Code, and therefore the Commission would have no choice but to confirm the validity (what is called "availability") of the name.

However, hypothetically speaking, if someone (such as Rinchen Barsbold, and/or someone in collaboration with him) published another replacement name for _Ingenia_, and all researchers opted to use this new name (and ceased using _Ajancingenia_), then over time this new name would become the accepted name for this theropod genus through prevailing usage.  At some point, the author of _Ajancingenia_ might submit a petition to the ICZN to uphold the priority of this name, and the Commission would undoubtedly agree.  But the Commission could not compel researchers to use _Ajancingenia_ in preference to the new name, and nor would it want to.  When it comes to matters of nomenclatural priority the Commission can only determine what is technically correct (i.e., in accordance with the Code), not what is ethical.

The salient point is that the Code cannot be mobilized to quash unethical behavior and rogue taxonomy.  The Commission has made it clear (via Opinion 2468) that it's the responsibility of researchers to deal with controversial names, and it's been cogently argued (e.g., Krell, 2021; dx.doi.org/10.21805/bzn.v78.a021) that this is the only appropriate solution in such cases.

(BTW, I'm not personally advocating this approach re _Ajancingenia_ - as already stated, the above scenario is entirely hypothetical.)

Ethan Schoales

unread,
Jan 6, 2025, 11:33:32 PM1/6/25
to DinosaurMa...@googlegroups.com
Do we know why the Commission refuses to deal with unethical names in the first place?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dinosaur Mailing Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to DinosaurMailingG...@googlegroups.com.

Tim Williams

unread,
Jan 7, 2025, 7:57:36 PM1/7/25
to DinosaurMa...@googlegroups.com
Ethan Schoales <ethan.s...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Do we know why the Commission refuses to deal with unethical names in the first place?

In short, and in its own words, the Commission is not empowered to take Appendix A of the Code (Code of Ethics) into account in its rulings.

Ethan Schoales

unread,
Jan 7, 2025, 8:04:23 PM1/7/25
to DinosaurMa...@googlegroups.com
That doesn’t really answer the question. Why have a code of ethics you don’t even use?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dinosaur Mailing Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to DinosaurMailingG...@googlegroups.com.

Mike Taylor

unread,
Jan 8, 2025, 5:48:11 AM1/8/25
to DinosaurMa...@googlegroups.com
> Why have a code of ethics you don’t even use?

To guide well-intentioned researchers, of course — which is 99% of them.

-- Mike.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/CALAi95EHLw1SLfCYZ_h6GgCPFB-EMoxT%2B%3DLN0WMbAReP2s8z9A%40mail.gmail.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages