[Previous by date - (no subject)]
[Next by date - RE: Validity of *Tyrannosaurus stanwinstonorum* Pickering (1996)]
[Previous by subject - Typos in Article 3 Example 1]
[Next by subject - UNSUBSCRIBE PhyloCode]
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 09:57:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: StephanPickering@cs.com
To: PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Tyrannosaurus stanwinstorum FMNH PR2081 = BHI 2033
--Boundary_(ID_vmM7/ZN6F9JIHIQ42en4Wg)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
My various publications containing the name Tyrannosaurus stanwinstonorum (I
never used the trivial name "stanwinstonorus", which is an incorrect
emendation re: ICZN) were never designed, printed, nor distributed as "newsletters",
but as self-published extracts from two larger books-in-progress, Mutanda
Dinosaurologica and Alfred Russel Wallace's KING KONG: the semioptics of Willis
O'Brien. Two of my published extracts were widely distributed to various
scholars, and printed on high-quality paper. One12 page publication specifically (on
"glossy paper", and saddle-bound) was printed on 4 April 1996, this being KING
KONG: unauthorized Jewish fractals in philopatry. Dr Holtz's description of it
having "nazi/Freudian interpretation of King Kong, racism, and mixed in there
some rather unhelpful attempts to coin new species of Allosaurus [=
Allosaurus whitei AMNH 666] and Tyrannosaurus [stanwinstorum]" is, I'm afraid, entirely
inaccurate. There were various elucidations of the impact of the 1933 film
(personally, I use, in my book, more of Jacques Lacan's paradigms, rejecting
entirely those of Freud, who falsified data, etc., as the scholarship of Fred
Crews has conclusively documented; as a Jew, I do not discern where the "nazi"
propoganda machines had any applicability to: dinosaur research, scinema theory,
taxonomy, etc.). Whether or not my new taxa are "unhelpful" is a value
judgment. Thus, the name "booklet" or "newsletter" I reject outright, as
editor/creator/designer of my own (paleo)ontological publications.
In 1996, I presented a species name, Tyrannosaurus stanwinstonorum, a
designed type specimen, referred specimens for the hypodigm, and a very brief
diagnosis (all in a publication with a date specified).
This 1996 publication was distributed world-wide with copies of Mr
Michael Fredericks's Prehistoric Times, without charge or thought for receiving any
monetary compensation (none was asked for, never received).
According to the ICZN, publication means "issued publicly for the purpose
of providing a permanent scientific record", must "be obtainable, when first
issued, free of charge". My publications were printed using photolithography,
the 1996 publication using half-tones and line-drawings of my choosing.
As a Jewish dinosaurologist, I choose what venue is necessary for
dissemination of my thoughts, for any new dinosaur taxa I believe to be valid. And, I
shall continue doing so: I believe self-publishing to be a scientifically
valid (and sane) method of iterating thoughts, creating new dinosaur taxa, as can
be easily demonstrated by perusing (as I do, often) George Olshevsky's
excellent, privately printed dinosaur monographs. Mr Headden (often hiding behind
the masque of "Qilongia"), who has never published anything on dinosaur
taxonomy, is, it would appear, continuing his idiosyncratic, vacuous efforts to
censor, emend, the valid scientific work of others. He is no ethical/moral position
to be transposing his nonscientific agenda onto my continuing analyses, as a
Jew within the contexts of interpreting taxonomies and ecomorphologies (and
revisions of those analyses; my 1996 diagnosis of Tyrannosaurus stanwinstonorum
is, 7 years later, slightly different, albeit more detailed). I have spent 49
years studying dinosaurs in the context of evolutionary developmental thought
and philology, phylogenetic systematics (and cladistic biogeography being a
component) as my paradigm. Mr Headden needs to take a deep breath, and make the
attempt (at this point I do not believe it would be successful) to create his
own dinosaur analyses for others to judge, analyze, and discuss. He is, I would
say, consumed with jealousy of those who would take the time to do the
research (I had the distinct honour, for several years, of having as my personal
mentor, Sam Welles), to publish that research...tasks he is not yet capable of.
The "community rules standard" can be capricious and ill-advised.
STEPHAN PICKERING / Chofetz Chayim ben-Avraham
The Dinosaur Fractals Project
2333 Portola Drive # 4
Santa Cruz, California 95062-4250 USA
stephanpickering@cs.com
website: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/paleo_bio_dinosaur_ontology
theropod research summarized: <www.dinodata.net> see under PICKERING at their
Reference Base
--Boundary_(ID_vmM7/ZN6F9JIHIQ42en4Wg)
Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SERIF" FACE=3D"=
Times New Roman" LANG=3D"0"><B>My various publications containing the name <=
I>Tyrannosaurus stanwinstonorum </I>(I never used the trivial name "stanwins=
tonorus", which is an incorrect emendation re: ICZN) were <I>never </I> =
;designed, printed, nor distributed as "newsletters", but as self-published=20=
extracts from two larger books-in-progress, <I>Mutanda Dinosaurologica </I>a=
nd <I>Alfred Russel Wallace's KING KONG: the semioptics of Willis O'Brien. <=
/I>Two of my published extracts were widely distributed to various scholars,=
and printed on high-quality paper. One12 page publication specifically (on=20=
"glossy paper", and saddle-bound) was printed on 4 April 1996, this being <I=
>KING KONG: unauthorized Jewish fractals in philopatry. </I>Dr Holtz's descr=
iption of it having "nazi/Freudian interpretation of <I>King Kong</I>, racis=
m, and mixed in there some rather unhelpful attempts to coin new species of=20=
<I>Allosaurus </I>[=3D <I>Allosaurus whitei</I> AMNH 666] and <I>Tyrannosaur=
us </I>[<I>stanwinstorum</I>]" is, I'm afraid, entirely inaccurate. There we=
re various elucidations of the impact of the 1933 film (personally, I use, i=
n my book, more of Jacques Lacan's paradigms, rejecting entirely those of Fr=
eud, who falsified data, etc., as the scholarship of Fred Crews has conclusi=
vely documented; as a Jew, I do not discern where the "nazi" propoganda mach=
ines had any applicability to: dinosaur research, scinema theory, taxonomy,=20=
etc.). Whether or not my new taxa are "unhelpful" is a value judgment. Thus,=
the name "booklet" or "newsletter" I reject outright, as editor/creator/des=
igner of my own (paleo)ontological publications.=20
<BR> In 1996, I presented a species name, <I>Tyrannosaurus=
stanwinstonorum, </I>a designed type specimen, referred specimens for the h=
ypodigm, and a very brief diagnosis (all in a publication with a date specif=
ied).=20
<BR> This 1996 publication was distributed world-wide with=
copies of Mr Michael Fredericks's <I>Prehistoric Times</I>, without charge=20=
or thought for receiving any monetary compensation (none was asked for, neve=
r received).=20
<BR> According to the ICZN, publication means "issued publ=
icly for the purpose of providing a permanent scientific record", must "be o=
btainable, when first issued, free of charge". My publications were printed=20=
using photolithography, the 1996 publication using half-tones and line-drawi=
ngs of my choosing.=20
<BR> As a Jewish dinosaurologist, I choose what venue is n=
ecessary for dissemination of my thoughts, for any new dinosaur taxa I belie=
ve to be valid. And, I shall continue doing so: I believe self-publishing to=
be a scientifically valid (and sane) method of iterating thoughts, creating=
new dinosaur taxa, as can be easily demonstrated by perusing (as I do, ofte=
n) George Olshevsky's excellent, privately printed dinosaur monographs. Mr H=
eadden (often hiding behind the masque of "Qilongia"), who has never publish=
ed anything on dinosaur taxonomy, is, it would appear, continuing his idiosy=
ncratic, vacuous efforts to censor, emend, the valid scientific work of othe=
rs. He is no ethical/moral position to be transposing his nonscientific agen=
da onto my continuing analyses, as a Jew within the contexts of interpreting=
taxonomies and ecomorphologies (and revisions of those analyses; my 1996 di=
agnosis of <I>Tyrannosaurus stanwinstonorum</I> is, 7 years later, slightly=20=
different, albeit more detailed). I have spent 49 years studying dinosaurs i=
n the context of evolutionary developmental thought and philology, phylogene=
tic systematics (and cladistic biogeography being a component) as my paradig=
m. Mr Headden needs to take a deep breath, and make the attempt (at this poi=
nt I do not believe it would be successful) to create his own dinosaur analy=
ses for others to judge, analyze, and discuss. He is, I would say, consumed=20=
with jealousy of those who would take the time to do the research (I had the=
distinct honour, for several years, of having as my personal mentor, Sam We=
lles), to publish that research...tasks he is not yet capable of.=20
<BR> The "community rules standard" can be capricious and=20=
ill-advised.=20
<BR> </FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SA=
NSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0"></B>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D1 FAMILY=3D"SERIF" FACE=3D"Georgi=
a" LANG=3D"0"><B>STEPHAN PICKERING / Chofetz Chayim ben-Avraham
<BR>The Dinosaur Fractals Project
<BR>2333 Portola Drive # 4
<BR>Santa Cruz, California 95062-4250 USA
<BR>stephanpickering@cs.com
<BR>website: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/paleo_bio_dinosaur_ontology
<BR>theropod research summarized: <www.dinodata.net> see under PICKERI=
NG at their Reference Base</B></FONT></HTML>
--Boundary_(ID_vmM7/ZN6F9JIHIQ42en4Wg)--