[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: To Fred Bervoets



George Olshevsky wrote-

> It is not "unjustified," it is >mandatory<, since the name honors more
than
> one person. Tenontosaurus tillettorum is correct. Peter Dodson once tried
to
> get me to desist trying to change Avaceratops lammersi to Avaceratops
> lammersorum, arguing that he had meant to honor the >one and only< Lammers
> family (so that the singular ending -i would be appropriate), but this is
not
> correct. The code then and now goes by the number of persons:
(snip)
> The Lammers family includes both men and women, therefore the ending is
> mandated to be -orum. Sorry Peter, and sorry whoever thought my emendation
> was unjustified. The stem of Lammers is Lammers, as used (correctly) by
> Peter; all that needs to be changed is the -i to -orum.
> As I argued to Peter, had he originally spelled the epithet lammersorum,
> nobody would have tried to "correct" it to the singular genitive lammersi!

Okay, now I'm confused.  Back in February of 1997
(http://www.cmnh.org/fun/dinosaur-archive/1997Feb/0514.html), you wrote A.
lammersi and T. tilletti should be retained as the correct names because the
ICZN ruled that the emendation was unjustified.  Has this changed?

Mickey Mortimer