Talk:Pennaraptora

A question regarding the authority
I assume that Ji, Currie, Norell and Ji (1998) cited in the article is their 1998 paper from Nature which included the description of Caudipteryx. The name Chuniaoae does not seem to appear in the article itself, but it does appear in the online supplementary information.

However, Christopher Taylor's post on the Catalogue of Organisms blog, as well as comments below that post, indicate that supplementary information does not have the same status as the main article, and that taxa which were only described in the supplementary information are not validly published. This would indicate that Chuniaoae was not validly named in 1998.

On the other hand, the contents of the supplementary information of this article were printed in the 2001 book Rise of the Dragon: Readings from Nature on the Chinese Fossil Record, with the name Chuniaoae showing up on page 199 of the book. Would this make the group validly named in 2001? Could someone better versed in the ICZN regulations clarify the situation?--Macrochelys (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reading the supplementary information again, I realized that Chuniaoae was not defined in any way either in 1998 or in 2001. The Theropod Database is probably right about Chuniaoae being the original name that Ji et al. intended for the clade that they ended up calling "unnamed clade of Caudipteryx + Avialae", but nonetheless this is only the best guess based on the context in which the name Chuniaoae appears in the supplementary information rather than something that was made explicit in the text of the information in question. It seems that Chuniaoae was a nomen nudum until 2012, when it was defined in "A Field Guide to Mesozoic Birds and Other Winged Dinosaurs".--Macrochelys (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Terms like "validly described" and "nomen nudum" have no application to the name Chuniaoae because, as a taxon above the rank of superfamily, it is not governed by the ICZN. Therefore it was named when it was named, supplementary info or not. As for the definition, IIRC my reading of the supp info it was pretty clear the clade they were defining was Chuniaoae but I'll have to go back and check. It may be that the name was not actually linked to the definition as I thought in which case I accidentally made myself the definitional author, but it should still probably be cited as Ji et al. vide Martyniuk 2012 in that case anyway. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that while ICZN as a whole does not regulate the names of taxa above the family rank, a few specific articles of the Code (including articles 8 and 9, which regulate what does and what does not constitute published work, and article 11.1, which specifies that, to be available, a name has to be published in the meaning of article 8) do in fact apply to all taxa regardless of the rank (article 1.2.2 of the Code). And yes, seeing that you credited the authorship of Chuniaoae to Ji et al. in the book, I agree that, if anything, the authority would be Ji et al. vide Martyniuk 2012.--Macrochelys (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete migration
I didn't see any explanation for renaming the article from Aviremigia, but there are still several incoming links named so: Special:WhatLinksHere/Aviremigia. I'm not familiar with the discipline, so I'd rather not touch templates or other scientific data that's unknown to me. But the label for Wikiproject Birds that I noticed at the old article probably belongs here now. ~ Nelg (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal notice
This article is involved in a larger merge proposal discussion taking place at WT:DINO.  LittleLazyLass  (Talk | Contributions) 21:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)