[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 <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> 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.  

Rant concludes.