[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Novas, Age of Dinos in S.A., pg 203 figure D
David Marjanovic <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> The ggggut-wrrrrrenching part is that it seems that the
> embarrassing spelling must stay embarrassing forever and
> must not be corrected, because corrections are only allowed
> (and required) when there's evidence _from within the
> publication itself_ that an error has occurred, and,
> depending on how narrowly "evidence" is defined, it's
> probably not there. http://www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp
Well, since David has said his piece, I'll also take this opportunity to throw
my teddy bear out of the cot. I agree with David 100%...
I'm amazed at how many times the naming of a new genus or species ends up as a
complete balls-up. _Futalognkosaurus_ is just one of a long line of
nomenclatural disasters. We also have _Aberratiodontus_, _Gigantspinosaurus_,
_Angulomastacator_, _Confuciusornis_, _Minotaurasaurus_, and so on. And that's
just the genera.
The ICZN is not there to clean up other people's messes. If you're going to
name a new genus or species, do it properly. I refuse to believe that it's so
hard to get a name right the first time. Not being a native speaker in a
certain language is not an excuse. If in doubt, consult someone who is a
native speaker, or (especially in the case of Greek and Latin) someone who is
at least familiar with things like connecting vowels and correct spelling.