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

RE: Richardoestesia vs. Ricardoestesia (again)

Tracy Ford (dino.hunter@cox.net) wrote:

<Not assuming. The authors DID, I repeat DID not have an 'h' in the name.
It WAS, I repeat WAS the editors or whoever at the publishers who put in
the 'h'. It was NOT the authors. I hope that is clear enough.>

  No, it is not. Saying it is so proves nothing of the process in which
the "h" was acheived. Such an accident requires a person placing an "h"
into each and every occurance _but one_ of the name, and unless the
proofer was _told_ this to do, there is no other way it could occur than
to have been in the original manuscript. Which, I admit, could easily have
been an accident. The "h" is nowhere near the sequence on a QWERTY _or_
ASCII keyboard for typing "Ricardoestesia" to have been accidentally keyed
in. Otherwise, one is calling into question the ethics of the
proofer/editor of the Columbia University volume, which, given the esteem
of that institution, I find completely untenable. It may very well be
accidental, but the evidence does not seem to favor this conclusion. I am
coming at this from the side that a person must have helmed the inclusion
of an "h" whether at the manuscript or proofing levels. Also, galleys are
sent back to confirm proofing to the primary author (Currie) and it is
unlikely that he would have overlooked the systematic use of a name.

<Talk to Bob Sloan and see what he says. That should end this...>

  I would like to hear what the other two authors say on the issue.
Currie, as first author, would be my first choice for confirmation, and I
would take it as confirmed that Currie accepts the use of
"Richardoestesia" based on systematic use. Glut's publication (1997) lists
a pers. comm. of a pers. comm., despite having both of George's MM#2
printings in reference, for his source of the naming problem. This is his
reason for excluding the "h." I do not agree that a pers. comm. should be
such a sufficient cause, and this would dismiss this reference as a valid
support of publication of the name. Otherwise, popular pub's are among the
only other support for the lack of an "h." Popular work does not count in
scientific circles, as may be clear by attempts to suppress *Apatosaurus*
in lieu of *Brontosaurus* (and this in spite of support for *Coelophysis*,
grr...). Oh, and George as First Revisor applied the name _in accordance
to the Code_ to *Richardoestesia*.


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