[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: GALTONIA (zoology vs. botany)
In a message dated 3/14/01 1:23:36 AM EST, email@example.com writes:
<< The electronic search issue is one of the reasons I feel
the spelling Richardoestesia should be accepted as-is
rather than replaced with Ricardoestesia at this point.
It's spelled Richardoestesia in the Zoological Record,
BIOSIS, Georef, etc. If the name is switched after 10
years of one usage, it means that researchers will have to
remember to look up two very similar spellings for the
name to find all the literature they need. Because the
spellings are so close, it won't be as obvious as checking
synonyms used at various times (looking up Tarbosaurus
refs under Tyrannosaurus literature, for example). >>
In other words, we should allow the computers control us, rather than us
controlling the computers. I say instead, let's change to the correct form,
Ricardoestesia, >without further ado<, so that the name, spelled the way the
authors wanted it, will begin accumulating in the published literature.
Eventually the spelling Ricardoestesia will predominate, but only if we begin
using it forthwith.