Talk:Neptunidraco

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Amphibians and Reptiles Low‑importance

	Neptunidraco is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Commentary moved from article edit

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

See heading:

"The genus and species name Neptunidraco ammoniticus is not a valid name under the International convention of Zoological nomenclature UNTIL the article in Gondwana Research is published. Presentation of it in this forum is inviting at best numerous nomina nuda and could even lead to the fossil being named by someone else." [ added by user:59.101.15.65 ] J. Spencer (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think this issue has been raised before. Maybe we should bring this issue up at Wikiproject Palaeontology? There are many articles about taxa whose descriptions haven't been published yet but are in press (see the names in 2011 in paleontology, for example), all of which would apply to this discussion. Smokeybjb (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've been asked in the past to move such articles into my userspace, although it's often quite evident that a species is new. Offhand, I know of three such articles I created in 2008, and only one of them so far has been formally described, to the best of my knowledge-- the other two are sitting out there with titles that have "sp. (2008)" on the end. Perhaps the best option is to create a subsection regarding the "likely" or "potentially" new genus in the parent taxon article, to be moved to its own article if the paper is ever published. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Add topic