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

Re: My/Our Computer(s) (zoology vs. botany)



At 1:51 AM -0500 3/14/01, Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 3/14/01 1:23:36 AM EST, bh480@scn.org 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.

Assembled Paleo/Dino Loving to the point of Obsessed Hordes,

What's the problem with your computer?
My computer does exactly what I tell it to do or I will promptly end the issue with a well placed .45. Thus far, it is extremely compliant. I think it understands me perfectly.


Next question?

Ciao,
Paleo-Annie Oakley