An update to the previous concerns over the validity of the name Panphagia (see original post on the new species here, and the ICZN controversy here). In the comments section of the later post, an author of the Panphagia description in the online journal PLoS ONE, had this to say:
- "Regarding to the ICZN requierements, I let you know that PLoS made the printed copies. So, the problem of the validity or not of the new species is over."
--Ricardo MartÃnez, Panphagia paper author
[Illustration Panphagia above is from here, copyright Jorge Gonzalez.]
Yes, they have all been addressed the same way - all the taxonomy papers in PLoS ONE now describe valid taxonomic names. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteThis is all post-Darwinius though, correct? So the valid publication date for Aerosteon is now 2009, rather than 2008?
ReplyDelete>So the valid publication date for Aerosteon is now 2009, rather than 2008?<
ReplyDeleteAccording to the ICZN, yes.
Correct for all except the paper describing new ant species (our very first taxonomy paper) which was resolved at the time of publication by depositing CDs to libraries.
ReplyDeleteThank goodness! I was just waiting for some yahoo to rename the things in an obscure journal. . .
ReplyDelete