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

RicHardoestesia Spelling



George Olshevsky (Dinogeorge@aol.com) wrote:

<I see. Because >Peter Dodson< prefers the incorrectly formed name, that 
supersedes the ICZN rule on using the plural genitive when honoring more
than  one person (Lammers >family,< as stated in the paper). But if >Phil
Currie, Keith Rigby, and Robert Sloan< prefer the spelling Ricardoestesia,
which occurs in their paper except where it was destroyed by an editor
with a global-replace function in his word processor, then they are stuck
with a name they did not create and do not desire in the literature. I had
no idea that Peter had this much control over naming dinosaur taxa.>

  I use the -orum ending when correct, as in *Sauropelta*,
*Tenontosaurus*, and *Avaceratops*. The emendations are validly published
and were done so in accordance to the ICZN in the time it was permitted
(after 1999 not so).

  However, if by statement from Sloan that the name used was wrong, does
the fact that Currie himself in several publications used
*Richardoestesia* and not "Ricardoestesia"? It is likely that, in the
first place, the original name used was accepted and the first revision as

you published was accepted, *Richardoestesia* must be one of those names
that must stay? When is it okay to ignore the rules when it is no longer
desired? I would say that as we have the rulebook, we use it. Mistakes
happen. I am frankly annoyed that the name *Rioarribasaurus*, however
_not_ prefered, was supressed to favor first a name based on
non-diagnostic material (sacrum) and then neotyped to the
*Rioarribasaurus* type. As it were, the letter of the law was ignored, and
when I read the transactions, I was rooting for Sullivan, Lucas, and
Olshevsky as they upheld the ICZN's rules against Colbert and allies
wanting to keep their *Coelophysis*.

  Where is the George who followed the rules however uncomfortable? Ben is
right in saying that the name *Richardoestesia* has priority over
"Ricardoestesia," and detailed exactly why; there are no leagal provisions
to "Second Revisor" except to say that the first revision somehow did not
comply with ICZN dictum ... and I know you are too good for that, George.
:)

  Cheers,

=====
Jaime A. Headden

  Little steps are often the hardest to take.  We are too used to making leaps 
in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do.  We should all 
learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com