[Taxacom] Sinoniscus Liu and Wang
Tony.Rees at csiro.au
Tony.Rees at csiro.au
Fri Sep 28 00:48:57 CDT 2012
Just for completeness - the allocation to Palaeonisciformes is also contained in the relevant entry in Zoological Record, presumably from the original work:
Author(s): Liu, H.; Wang, N.
Source: Memoirs of Institute of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Palaeoanthropology Academia Sinica Supplement: No. 13 Pages: 1-18 Published: 1978
Accession Number: ZOOR11500051560
(contains among others:)
Palaeonisciformes Sinoniscus Gen nov Type species S. macrolepis, p. 6, Upper Permian Fossil
Palaeonisciformes Sinoniscus macrolepis Sp nov China, Upper Permian, P. 6, fig'd Fossil
(this is from the online version as at now, presumably there is an equivalent citable print form)
Which might be a more reliable source since Sepkoski contains a larger-than-expected number of minor typographic errors.
Just a thought,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Geoff Read
> Sent: Friday, 28 September 2012 3:33 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Sinoniscus Liu and Wang
> An alternative. In the paleobiology database http://paleodb.org
> is stated to have assigned Sinoniscus to Palaeonisciformes. Checking
> citing that as Liu and Wang (1979) fide Sepkoski would probably suffice
> establish it exists in taxonomic printed literature, & independent of
> online databases. Also it would be a source other people could more
> check if interested.
> J. J. Sepkoski. 2002. A compendium of fossil marine animal genera.
> Bulletins of American Paleontology 363:1-560 [J. Alroy/J. Alroy/M.
> On Fri, September 28, 2012 3:17 pm, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> > Neal,
> > I'm not trying to give Stefano any grief! I'm just saying that we
> have to
> > be realistic. The fossil fish wasn't described in a "paper" ("danged"
> > otherwise!) - it was described in Chinese in a book
> (=bulletin=memoir). It
> > will probably be very difficult or even impossible for Stefano to get
> > of it, or understand it if he does manage to get hold of it (assuming
> > he probably isn't fluent in Chinese!) But, there is no real need.
> > Zoological record have recorded it, so it exists with the relevant
> > details. There is very little that could make a new genus described
> > 1978 an unavailable name, so the default assumption in this case is
> > it is indeed an available name. With so much to do in terms of
> > biodiversity (how is the N.Z. revision progressing Stefano?), it is
> > utterly pointless, IMHO, to worry *too much* about this detail ...
> > Cheers,
> > Stephen
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
> (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
More information about the Taxacom