Hello,

What are you talking about ? Description as "the description of a new taxon" or as "describing the features of a fossil specimen". In the first case of course the two International Codes fully apply. If their requirements are not respected the description is not valid. In the second case as for any taxonomical approach there are more habits and standards than real rules.

regards

Thank you Marc for your answer. To be honest I was referring to both issues. Could you please direct me to those two International Codes? Could you also provide me with any example of even short range standards for describing the features of a fossil specimen?

Here is the link to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN): http://www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp

Here is the to the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICBN): http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php?page=title

About common practices describing specimens: In vertebrates a description usually starts with cranial elements (cranium [often rostral parts first], lower jaw, teeth, scleral rings), followed by the vertebral column and then the appendicular skeleton (medial first working to distal elements).

While writing a palaeological paper we normally follow after introduction the systematic classification, locality/horizon, diagnosis of the genus and species new or known following ICZN, then description of the fossil material, discussion and conclusion. I think that is fairly OK.

Thank you for all insights on the issue !!!

Anek has answered clearly, but it is worth noting that each journal has a slightly different standard format; just look at recent issues to see how they want it arranged. Normally, the sequence for a new species is:

• Etymology
• Diagnosis
• Holotype (including type locality and age)
• Paratype (including localities and ages)
• Other material (ditto)
• Description
• Remarks/Discussion

For a new genus, it is roughly:

• Etymology
• Diagnosis
• Remarks/Discussion
• Type species (including age and type locality)
• Distribution (if more than the type locality)

Joseph has clearly stated the heads under which we describe the fossils. If some journals do no follow this methodology it is their limitation. Then we have metric and non-metric comparisons, figures, scans, graphs etc. What else we need?

The Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology makes a great reference for those fossils.

As other writers have said, the international codes are the basis for taxonomic descriptions. As a paleontologist, I am not eager to do taxonomic work, but I've published a few papers describing new genera and species for both plants and animals. My experience has been that if you want to stir up the ire of reviewers, propose a new taxon. The biggest issue I've witnessed is not the writing of a detailed description, it's the need to have a thorough "differential diagnosis", carefully explaining why the fossil cannot be assigned to any previously established taxon. For that, a very careful literature search is essential.

Once again thank you for all answers. I am a computer specialist that have been asked to help in the development of unified description systems for fossils. However I found out that the problem should be at first stripped to two aspects. First of them is the positioning of the fossil organism in the taxonomy of species (sorry if I am obscuring the problem). The other issue is the description of morphology and physical properties of the fossil itself including, if applicable, the geological characteristics.

Am I right?

Yes Krystian taxonomic positioning of a species is important un time and space. This also helps in understanding the differential diagnosis very pertinent while creating a new taxon. But, temptation of creating new species, which is too much among palaeontologists, need to be initially minimised as we have little knowledge of the wide range of variation aught to be among fossil species as in extant ones. And, this needs to be tested across stratigraphic/temporal levels since many species are transgressive.