Andrew, Andy,

you are both missing the point here: of course there is good reason to
ignore nomenclatural acts stated in writings that are near impossible to
obtain. However, the ruling is by the ICZN. And in the 1999 Code there is no
rule whatsoever that invalidates the kind of works (i.e. American theses) we
are discussing.
And that's it, folks!


Marien


----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Grebneff" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 6:26 AM
Subject: Re: Volutes (multiple copies, anyone)


> >Well, Marien, I do not agree with everything you said, but clearly
> >there is little point in the two of us continuing this discussion.
>
>
> that would get nowhere on this issue, and for good reason. As Andrew
> Rindsberg says, theses are not generally available to workers... in
> fact there is no way for workers to even KNOW about the theses, as
> basically only the authors and their examiners will know. Also most
> theses are full of mistakes and errors of judgement.
>
> A friend of mine who did his thesis on Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary
> mollusca of New Zealand let his thesis languish for years (I got a
> copy, one of 4 sets... 2 large volumes plus one of plates) , then
> tried to get funds to have it published. No luck... until now,
> several years later, it looks like it's getting set to be published
> in Australia.
>
> It is most unfortunate that theses are not normally published.
> However most authors lose interest, or are by then working full-time
> and just don't have the time to revise for publication.
>
> So new taxa proposed in unpublished theses remain manuscript names,
> and hence unavailable.
> --
> Andrew Grebneff
> Dunedin, New Zealand
> 64 (3) 473-8863
> <[log in to unmask]>
> Fossil preparator
> Seashell, Macintosh & VW/Toyota van nut
> _________________________
> I want your sinistral gastropods!
> _________________________
> Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
> A: Why is top posting frowned upon?