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

/RE: Richardoestesia vs. Ricardoestesia (again)




-----Original Message-----
From: Jaime A. Headden [mailto:qilongia@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 9:10 PM
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Cc: dino.hunter@cox.net; dinogeorge@aol.com
Subject: 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.<<

My head is starting to hurt, is anyone else's?

>> 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.<<

Ok, lets try again. Bob Sloan talked to George about the 'h' in
Ricardoestesia and asked him why he put an 'h' in it. So, we can deduce that
he didn't want the 'h' and was correct George on this. OK, so far? George
said, it's all over in your article, and hold on to your hats...Bob was
shocked...and had to check it out for him self. Now, we can conclude, quite
correctly, that Bob didn't want the 'h' and the other authors for that
matter in Ricardoestesia. Ok, so far? Get it yet? Bob was shocked it was
there. He told George (and you can't get a better source than an author!)
that he didn't want the 'h' and it was the publisher who put it in. None,
and I can't repeat this enough, none of the original and per reviewed papers
(I assume or Bob wouldn't have been shocked) had the 'h'. Clear yet? Do you
understand this yet? Does anyone else get this story? No 'h', in the
manuscript. Just ask Bob!

 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.<<

Fine, ASK THEM!!!

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*.<<

Ask them!


  Cheers,

=====
Jaime A. Headden

Tracy L. Ford
P. O. Box 1171
Poway Ca  92074