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

Re: Richardoestesia vs. Ricardoestesia

Good for you---Stand your ground!! However, this is the first I've heard of the Ceratopia spelling debate. How controversial is that?
Any other dinosaur taxon names (above the level of genera) whose spelling is controversial?
Cheers, Ken
From: Dinogeorge@aol.com
Reply-To: Dinogeorge@aol.com
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: Richardoestesia vs. Ricardoestesia
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 23:05:04 EST

In a message dated 2/23/01 8:54:30 PM EST, bh480@scn.org writes:

<< Usage in technical literature has pretty well decided the
 issue as I see it and, irksome as some may find it, the
 original published spelling Richardoestesia is the valid
 spelling for the name under the ICZN.  >>

When I revised the spelling to Ricardoestesia, the name had appeared
elsewhere only in its original article, and the revision was perfectly
valid--particularly since I know that's the spelling the authors originally
desired (regardless of the fact that the H spelling might be etymologically
acceptable). Now that ten years have passed, of course, this >miserable<
error has perpetuated itself through a number of papers and become the
predominant usage; even the Zoological Record has it wrong. That's not my
fault, except in that I didn't sell enough copies of MM #3 to make most
people aware of the mistake. Bah. I'll continue to use Ricardoestesia and
thumb my nose at the wrong majority, as I do with Ceratopia and so forth.
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com