Talk:Riabininohadros

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ukraine Low‑importance

	Ukraine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merger Proposal

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

None of the dinosaur taxa named by Roman Ulansky are valid according to Galton & Carpenter (2016). They were “published” in Ulansky’s “journal” Dinologia, a non-peer-reviewed collection of pdf’s on his personal website where he is the sole author. Suffice to say Dinologia does not meet the ICZN requirements for a valid publication and thus all of these names are nomina nuda. I propose that all of the remaining Ulansky taxa pages should be merged into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_informally_named_dinosaurs.

Reference: Galton, P.M., & Carpenter, K. (2016). The plated dinosaur Stegosaurus longispinus Gilmore, 1914 (Dinosauria: Ornithischia; Upper Jurassic, western USA), type species of Alcovasaurus n. gen. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie - Abhandlungen, 279(2), 185-208. Carnoferox (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Riabininohadros has been used as a valid name without comment in two papers since its original coining, so the issue seems a bit muddy. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I'm aware that Lopatin et al. (2018) have without comment treated "Riabininohadros" as valid. However, this is mistaken because it does not meet ICZN requirements for validity. This issue is not "muddy", it is crystal clear according to the Code. Continuing to pretend that Ulansky's names are valid only supports his taxonomic vandalism. Reference: Lopatin, A.V., Averianov, A.O., & Alifanov, V.R. (2018). New data on dinosaurs of the Crimean Peninsula. Doklady Biological Sciences, 482(1), 206-209. Carnoferox (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add topic