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

Re: Richardoestesia vs. Ricardoestesia (again)



----- Original Message -----
From: <bh480@scn.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 1:29 AM

> Because he indicates with [sic] that "Ricardoestesia" is a
> misspelling, he selected Richardoestesia as the correct
> spelling and thus becomes the First Reviser for the name.
> The Big Question is whether the spelling Richardoestesia
> can be considered incorrect under 32.4 and 32.5.  Here's
> what the ICZN says:
>
> 32.5. Spellings that must be corrected (incorrect original
> spellings).
> 32.5.1. If there is in the original publication itself,
> without recourse to any external source of information,
> clear evidence of an inadvertent error, such as a lapsus
> calami or a copyist's or printer's error, it must be
> corrected.

Er... in case anyone wants to read my opinion on this... IMHO it's obvious
that the h is "an inadvertent error, such as a [...] copyist's or printer's
error", namely an editor's or lector's error. And so away with the h, and HP
Dinogeorge's First Revision is de jure not a First Revision because there
are not 2 potentially correct spellings in the original paper, and there was
much rejoicing. Where is the problem with that?

> Richardoestesia-like teeth are showing up in Europe and
> elsewhere,

Such as Guimarota (which BTW also contains a *Stokesosaurus* ilium and
tyrannosauroid pmx teeth). Apparently a long lineage of theropods is hidden
somewhere out there.