Message 2003-07-0001: Validity of *Tyrannosaurus stanwinstonorum* Pickering (1996)

Tue, 08 Jul 2003 00:43:46 -0700 (PDT)

[Next by date - RE: Validity of *Tyrannosaurus stanwinstonorum* Pickering (1996)]
[Previous by subject - Unsubscribe]
[Next by subject - Vermes]

Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 00:43:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Jaime A. Headden" <>
Subject: Validity of *Tyrannosaurus stanwinstonorum* Pickering (1996)

Appologies for the cross-posting before-hand, but I figured this to be of
import to a wide-range of people for the various fora that I post this to.

  After a discussion on a related topic of publication, a curious quandary
seems to have arisen.

  In Glut (1997; _Dinosaurs: the Encyclopedia_), pg. 954, Don cites a
figure SDSMT 12047, a *Tyrannosaurus rex*, as having a referral to the
hypodigm of the species Pickering named *T. "stanwinstonorus"*, and
included in the caption to this figure Pickering's diagnosis, a referal to
the original citation, and a listing of the hypodigm, in connection with
the figure. Given the ICZN, 3rd. ed., Art. 19, as in the 4th edition, it
is possible to supplement an original mention, if published, by citing it
further with additional information, and though this may not pertain
unless Pickering's work is considered valid under the ICZN, Glut's
publication apparently is valid. Gult provided all of Pickering's info
that satisfies Art. 19's rules on naming a species, making Glut's name
valid, even if Pickering's was not, and the citation would be:

  *Tyrannosaurus* Osborn, 1905
    *T. stanwinstonorus* Pickering (1996) _vide_ Glut, 1997
      (= *T. rex* Osborn, 1905, _sensu_ Glut, 1997)

  The caption as cited is thus: "Ventral view of skull (SDSMT 12047) of
    incomplete, immature *Tyrannosaurus rex* skeleton ... In a private
    publication of 1996, Stephan Pickering proposed a new (not yet
    taxon, *T. [rex] stanwinstonorus*, based on holotype BHI 2033 and
    referred specimen {Headden's note, this would be SDSMT 12047}, BHI
    3033, MMS 51-2004, and USNM 358563 and 419706, diagnosed thusly:
    reduced nasal rugosities; secondarily reduced postorbital-orbital
    joint; palatine with no ventral foramina; rostroventral area of
    pterygoid wing lacking rugosity; rugosity may be visible due to lose
    "supradentary"; 6-7 per cent larger body size than *T. bataar* or *T.

  The holotype is BHI 2033, which is nicknamed "Stan," and BHI 3033 was
the provisional accession number for what is now FMNH PR2081, nicknamed
"Sue." With consideration to previosu works, as in Molnar, Osborn, Brochu,
etc., virtually no specimen of *Tyrannosaurus rex* has any of these
features listed in the diagnosis, much less the holotype (AMNH 5027) of
*T. rex*.

  Pickering supposedly used the name "stanwinstonorum," but does this
pulbication of Glut's validify the name "stanwinstonorus"? This question
is in part also to clarify issues of publication. According to the ICZN,
which Glut follows, Art. 18--19 clarifies what validates publication, and
does not permit the issuance of a newsletter, which Pickering's 1996
publication accompanied and may be subjected to in essential format;
however, according to Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 101 (in the U.S. Code,
under which the issuance of the booklet is presided upon), in defining

    " 'Publication' is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a
  work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental,
  lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to
  group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public
  performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public
  performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute


  By the context of this message, Pickering's work constitutes
publication, but is not reflected by the ICZN's consideration, which holds
a rather stricter interpretation of what is NOT published, though the US
Code under which it was produced does permit it to be.

  Thus, I appeal to these three lists as to their considerations or
interpretations of these qualities. Typically, I can print out a sheet
with a new name, diagnosis, even figure, and say, make "Rinchenia"
official, and be standard by US law to have published, by sending 1,000+
copies of this to the SVP membership. How far am I from the truth with
this hypothetical scenario, or are we left with a "public rules" standard
of aggrement to what constitutes a validly published name, apart from the


Jaime A. Headden

  Little steps are often the hardest to take.  We are too used to making leaps in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do.  We should all learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)

Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!


Feedback to <> is welcome!