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

Re: Galtonia and new Ricardoestesia ref



On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote: 
> 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.

While I think both arguments make good points, pushing for a change in the
literature to the proper spelling of a genus is hardly without
precedent. To use another example from fossil amniotes, the basal
anomodont _Venyukovia_ was misspelled _Venjukovia_ in practically ALL
papers following its initial description, and only in recent years has the
correct spelling been brought back, and lo, it now has almost universal
acceptance. Also, in this case there wasn't just a decade of misspellings,
but rather 70 years of it, and it still managed to be corrected.  
While on the topic of Ric[h]ardoestesia, here's a new ref that describes
supposed teeth of the critter from Jurassic deposits in Moscow:

Alifanov, V.R. and A.G. Sennikov. 2001. Discovery of Dinosaur Remains in a
Moscow Suburb. _Doklady Earth Sciences_. 376:1-4.

As with all descriptions based on fragmentary remains from a Moscow
suburb, taxon assignments are definitely grain of salt-worthy.

Sincerely,
Christian Kammerer