Re: [dinosaur] Origolestes, or the blurry limits of nomenclatural availability

The science is fine; the "supp. inf." _is_ a proper descriptive paper that goes into amazing detail and will no doubt be useful for generations. The question is whether the _nomenclature_ is fine.

(OK, I have issues with the phylogenetic analysis, but at the rate at which updated phylogenetic analyses of Mesozoic mammals have been coming out, those issues could all be resolved a year or two from now... if perhaps only to be replaced by new ones.)

Gesendet: Freitag, 06. Dezember 2019 um 17:21 Uhr
Von: "Mike Taylor" <[email protected]>

On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 at 16:18, Thomas Richard Holtz <[email protected][mailto:[email protected]]> wrote:

> As I said on Facebook, Fie on the authors, reviewers, and editors for doing this.

And on the entire academic incentive structure, for making this anti-scientific behaviour more advantageous to the authors' careers than a proper descriptive paper in a real venue.