Talk:Silvadectes

Unpublished name!
The name Silvadectes has only appeared in a PhD thesis. It is not published according to Article 8 and 9 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.

The version I linked to isn't up to date; it has been amended, but the amendment has so far only been published here. Specifically, Art. 9 now has an "Example: A Ph.D. thesis that was distributed only to members of the student’s thesis committee is listed for sale in the catalogue of a print-on-demand publisher. The print-on-demand work is a reproduction of the thesis. Because the thesis was an unpublished work in its original form, it remains unpublished. If an editorial process was evident in converting the work to print-on-demand form (e.g., change to single spacing, repagination, addition of running headers), it might be considered published."

I see two options:


 * We completely remove the name Silvadectes from Wikipedia, return this article to Diadectes absitus, and mention that Kissel found in his 2010 thesis (which we can still cite!) that the inclusion of this species in Diadectes makes Diadectes paraphyletic with respect to Diasparactus, so Kissel erected a new genus, the name of which we do not mention, for "Diadectes" absitus.
 * We keep the name, but mention several times that it counts as unpublished and therefore unavailable to the ICZN; it does not compete for priority, neither in homonymy nor in synonymy.

It is still possible that Kissel (or indeed someone else) will choose a different name for publication, or that more recent versions of his analysis yield different results and he'll never publish the name.

David Marjanović (talk) 10:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this up. I moved this article over to Diadectes and made a mention of Kissel's analysis and the fact Silvadectes is an unpublished name. Smokeybjb (talk) 18:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)