1,720,958 research outputs found
On the nomenclature of certain American fossil vertebrates
No full textHay, OP (1899): On the nomenclature of certain American fossil vertebrates. The American Geologist 24: 345-34
Axestemys Cope 1872
No full textThe name Axestus was proposed in 1872 by Prof. Cope for a genus of trionychid tortoises, found in the Eocene deposits of Wyoming_ The species A. byssinus was further described and figured by Prof. Cope in 1884.§ The name is however preoccupied. It may be modified into Axestemys. Axetus was employed in 1834 by Dejean for a genus of beetles.Published as part of Hay, OP, 1899, On the nomenclature of certain American fossil vertebrates, pp. 345-349 in The American Geologist 24 on page 348, DOI: 10.1126/science.10.243.253, http://zenodo.org/record/337124
Equus phlegon
No full textIn 1893, Prof. E. D. Cope* described from the Blanco beds of Texas a horse which he called Equus minutus. It will. however, be necessary to apply to this animal a new name. since the term minutus had already been employed to designate another, probably two other, species of Equus. An Equus minutus was indicated by Marcelles de Serres in the year 1838,†but I have not been able to determine whether or not this name was accompanied by a description. For our present purpose this knowledge is not important. We have the following facts: In 1833 P. C. Schmerling‡ figured and described, without naming, some teeth of a small horse, found in caverns of Belgium, In 1858 A, von Nordmann§ wrote as follows: " Fur die kleinen Pferdezähne. angezeigt von Schmer* ling aus den Lutticher Knochenhohlen, ist von Marcelles de Serres die Benennung E. minutus vorgeschlagen Worden." This application of the name to those figured teeth would of itself be sufficient to give the name validity. I have been unable to find any mention of this Equus minutus in works more recent than Gervais' Zoologie et Paléontologie francais, 2 nd edition, 1859, Where it is made a synonym of Equus adamaticus. This itself is a synonym of E. caballus. Trouessartǁ credits to Dubois an Equus minutus, regarding it also as a synonym of E. caballus. and omitting reference to place of publication. Dr. T S. Palmer, of the U. S. Department of Agriculture, kindly informs me that Trouessart quotes the name and author from Roger's Verzeichniss, 1887, p. 46, in which place no additional information is vouchsafed. If Dubois has described as new an Equus minutus, it too antedates Cope's species of that name. For the latter I propose the name Equus phlegon.**Published as part of Hay, OP, 1899, On the nomenclature of certain American fossil vertebrates, pp. 345-349 in The American Geologist 24 on page 345, DOI: 10.1126/science.10.243.253, http://zenodo.org/record/337124
Deinodon horridus Leidy 1856
No full textIn 1856 Dr. Leidy* described a new genus of dinosaurian reptiles from the Judith River beds of Montana, and this genus he called Deinodon, the single species being D. horridus. A more extended description with figures was published by Dr. Leidy in 1860. When these descriptions were written Dr. Leidy was in doubt whether all the teeth comprehended under the name which he gave belonged to a single species or even a single genus. Some of the teeth, represented by figures 21 - 34, plate IX, as cited, resemble those of Megalosaurus and are broadly elliptical in section, with two denticulated carinae, on opposite sides of the crown. Other teeth, represented by figures 35 -45, are somewhat U-shaped in section, with one nearly plane surface, corresponding to the top of the U, and this surface is bounded on each side by a denticulated carina. But none of these teeth was especially designated as types of the genus Deinodon. In 1866 Prof. Cope‡ in considering these teeth, restricted the genus Deinodon (spelled Dinodon, however) to the teeth represented by figures 35-45 of Dr. Leidy`s plate. The Megalosaurus-like teeth, represented by figures 21 - 34, Prof. Cope regarded as belonging to his own genus Laelaps. In 1868 Dr. Leidy § again took up the subject; and refusing to be bound by Prof. Cope's action, he retained Deinodon (with the orthography Dinodon) for the teeth of figures 21 -34; while for the others he proposed the new generic name Aublysodon, the species being called A. mirandus. In the same year Prof. Cope, ǁ replying to Dr. Leidy, defended his own procedure, but accepted Dr. Leidy’s generic name Aublysodon on the ground that “ Dinodon ” had been preoccupied by Duméril and Bibron for a genus of snakes. Undoubtedly. Prof. Cope, being the first to distribute the materials of Dr. Leidy's composite species and genus, had entire right to assign the original name to such part thereof as he chose. and succeeding writers ought to have respected his work. Hence, Dr. Leidy’s original generic name adheres to the teeth represented by figures 35 -45 of his plate and not to the others. On the other hand, Prof. Cope erred when he undertook to improve Dr. Leidy’s name by writing Dinodon and again when, with this emendation as a basis, he accepted Aublysodon. Were Deinodon Leidy and Dinodon Duniéril and Bibrorı derived from the same Greek words, δεινος and 'οδων it would not be necessary first to emend Deinodon to Dinodon to produce interference But, while Leidys Deinodon is undoubtedly derived from the Greek words written above, Duméril and Bibron‘s Dinodon is not so derived. If we turn to the famous work on reptiles by the author* just mentioned, we find this explanation of their generic name: " Ce nom a été imagine par Bibron, d’apres l'examen de l'individu confié par M. Smith, Il semble composé de ∆t. par le milieu, de chaque côté, utrinque, et de Νοδως, édenté.” *Proc Acad, Nat. Sci. Phila., 1856,11. 72. † Trans. Amer. Philos. Soc., vol. XI, p. 144, pl. IX, figs. 21 -48. ‡Proc, Acad. Nat. Sci. Phíla., 1866, p. 270. §Proc.. Acad. Nat. Sci. l’liilzi., 1868, p. 198. ǁAmer.Jour.Sci.,[3], vol.XLVI,p.415. This being the case, Dr. Leidy`s name. in its original form Deinodon, is not preoccupied and is the proper name to apply to those species which for many years have been arranged under the generic name Aublysodon. It may be remarked here that more recently Prof. Cope† has emended also the Dinodon of Duméril and Bibron into Dianodon.Published as part of Hay, OP, 1899, On the nomenclature of certain American fossil vertebrates, pp. 345-349 in The American Geologist 24 on pages 346-347, DOI: 10.1126/science.10.243.253, http://zenodo.org/record/337124
Dryptosaurus kenabekides Hay 1899
No full textThe disposition of this case above detailed, which disposition I believe to be uncontestable, on the assumption that two distinct genera are included in the lot of teeth described by Leidy, leaves those teeth represented by figures 21 -34 without specific name. It is possible that they are covered by some of the specific names which have been included under Prof. Cope`s genus Laelaps, but apparently they are not. Hence, I believe that I am justified in giving them a provisional specific title. The name Laelaps, having been employed in 1835 for a genus of Arachnida. is not available iıı the sense given it by Prof. Cope. Hence, Prof. Marsh‡properly substituted for it, in 1877, the name Dryptosaurus. To this genus then the teeth represented by figures 21 -34 of Dr. Leidy's plate IX seen to belong. * Erpétulogie Générale. ml. VII, 1854. p. 447, footnote. †Trans. Amer. Philos., Soc., XVIII, p. 205. ‡Amer. jour. Sci.,[3], vol. XIV, p. 88. They may be called Dryptosaurus kenabekides.* From the time of Leidy’s first description there have been some reasons for suspecting that all the teeth described by him belonged to the same genus, indeed to the same animal. All those teeth were found “ in one place and possessed the same structural differences." Again, Prof. Cope in describing his Laelaps incrassatus; states that he found that the anterior denticulated carina of some of the anterior teeth was moved around the crown so that it was no longer opposite the hinder carina: and he says that a further transferrence would produce a tooth like those of Leidy's figures 35 -45, those with the U- shaped section. Furthermore, Cape says that he found a large tooth in immediate association with the jaw of his L. incrassatus, but separated from it, which had the posteriorly truncated section described by Leidy as typical; and Cope believed that this tooth belonged to the maxillary bone, near the position of the superior canine of a mammal. Nevertheless, in 1892 Prof. Cope: had the opportunity to study remains of L. incrassatus which furnished him nearly all parts of the skull; and he did not find, either in the maxilla or in the dentary, teeth of the kind represented in Leidy’s figures 35-45. The teeth of the premaxilla were missing in his specimen and there remains the possibility that they are the ones which possess the U-shaped section. Meantime, it seems wiser to retain the genera as distinct, awaiting further discoveries.Published as part of Hay, OP, 1899, On the nomenclature of certain American fossil vertebrates, pp. 345-349 in The American Geologist 24 on pages 347-348, DOI: 10.1126/science.10.243.253, http://zenodo.org/record/337124
Testudo gilbertii
No full text<p> <b>Mr</b>. J. Z. Gilbert ll has described the skull of a species of Testudo from the Loup Fork beds of Kansas and identified it with <i>Prof</i>. Cope`s <i>T</i>. undata, described * from the Loup Fork deposits of New Mexico. Since nothing is known of the latter species except a few marginals and a costal bone, there is really no evidence that the fine skull described by Gilbert belongs to T. undata. The probabilities are greater that it belongs to one of the species described by <i>Prof</i>. Copet from the Loup Fork beds of Kansas, Testudo orthopygia and T. cyclopygia. Ut T. orthopygia Prof. Cope possessed most of the skeleton including the skull. A comparison of <i>Mr</i>. Gilbert's figures and description with the description of Prof. Cope makes it pretty certain that the former is not identical with T, orthopygia. Of T. cyclopygia the skull is not known, and we have no means of comparing it with <i>Mr</i>. Gilbert's species. This being the case, it is better, I believe, to give the latter a distinct name. so that its literature may be kept separate until further discoveries demonstrate its relationship to other described forms.</p> <p> * The Kenabeek, the <i>great</i> serpents,</p> <p>Lying huge upon the water.</p> <p>Sparkling, rippling: un the water,</p> <p>Lying coiled across the passage,</p> <p> With their blazing crests uplifted. --Longfellow's Hiawatha. †Proc. Acad. <i>Nat</i>. Sci. Phila., 1876, p. 341.</p> <p> ‡Proc. Amer. Phillis. Soc., vol. <i>XXX</i>, p. 140.</p> <p> § Tcrtiary Vertebrates, p. <i>nó</i>, pl. XV, figs. 1 - 12.</p> <p> Kansas Univ. Quart., vol. <i>VII</i>. p. 143, with 4 text-figures.</p> <p> <i>I</i> name it in honor of its describer Testudo gilbertii.</p>Published as part of <i>Hay, OP, 1899, On the nomenclature of certain American fossil vertebrates, pp. 345-349 in The American Geologist 24</i> on pages 348-349, DOI: 10.1126/science.10.243.253, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/3371243">http://zenodo.org/record/3371243</a>
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Get PDFWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
- …
