[Taxacom] Sinoniscus Liu and Wang
gread at actrix.gen.nz
Fri Sep 28 01:57:11 CDT 2012
Having looked at the BHL pdf of Sepkoski (thanks Stephen) hoping to find
the fossil annelid genera, I too would rely more on Zoo Record if I had
it. Oh dear, dear me. They didn't make it easy to follow did they (it's
a posthumous edit by others). Easiest way to use it would be to print all
nearly 600 pages.
On Fri, September 28, 2012 5:48 pm, Tony.Rees at csiro.au wrote:
> 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,
> Tony Rees
>> -----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
More information about the Taxacom