RE: paleonet Dinosaur Genera List update #187

["Andrew Rindsberg" <arindsberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dinogeorge et al.,

Thanks for the explanation. But you will be pleased to hear that it misses
the mark in one respect.

I'm not sure what the 1999 Code requires, since I don't have access to a
copy of it. However, the 1985 Code states that an incorrect original
spelling (such as Richardoestesia with the H) MUST be corrected (Arts. 32b,
c, d). Further, this provision overrules the principle of the first reviser,
as stated in Art. 32b. So all that is needed is a simple statement that the
name was clearly intended to honor Ricardo Estes and that the name is
therefore corrected to Ricardoestesia without the H. Unless the 1999 Code
differs from the 1985 Code in this regard, Ricardoestesia is the only
correct spelling of the name.

I hasten to add that the Code defines "incorrect original spelling" quite
narrowly. There are several kinds, mostly dealing with Latin suffixes. The
one section that applies here states that there must be "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 (incorrect transliteration or latinization and
use of an inappropriate connecting word vowel are not to be considered
inadvertent errors)" (Art. 32c(ii)). In this case, a copyist's error is
evidently to blame.

Cheers,
Andrew K. Rindsberg

Geological Survey of Alabama
P.O. Box 869999
Tuscaloosa, AL 35486-6999

> [5] Ricardoestesia-----------------------------------
>
> Way back in 1991 at the San Diego SVP annual meeting, where I was selling
> copies of the just-printed first printing of Mesozoic Meanderings
> #2, Robert
> Sloan commented while we were waiting for a lecture to begin that I had
> inadvertently introduced a theropod nomen nudum into the
> literature. In my
> book, he said, I had misspelled the name Ricardoestesia with an "h":
> Richardoestesia. Fortunately, Cambridge University Press had a
> display at the
> meeting, and I quickly produced a copy of the Dinosaur Systematics book,
> wherein the genus was described. The spelling Richardoestesia was used
> practically everywhere in the paper, so I had assumed that that was the
> correct spelling and so listed it in MM #2. The spelling without
> the "h" also
> appeared in the paper, and I dutifully listed it too, as an incorrect
> original spelling.
>
> Sloan was aghast that the spelling he and his two coauthors, Phil
> Currie and
> Keith Rigby, chose for the genus had been replaced throughout the
> document by
> some nameless individual on the Cambridge staff after the
> proofreading had
> been completed. They had wanted their spelling to emulate the famous
> (notorious?) generic names honoring contemporary paleontologists
> employed by
> South American paleontologist Florentino Ameghino, who had
> specifically used
> the combining form ricardo-. I hadn't the heart to tell him that,
> as first
> revisor, I had pretty much killed any chance of restoring via normal ICZN
> rules the spelling that they wanted. But I promised him that I'd
> look into
> the situation and would do what I, in my small way, could do to get the
> h-less spelling established. So I deliberately chose to ignore my
> nomenclatural act in the first MM #2 printing and reversed it in
> the second MM
>  #2 printing a year later. Asserting that the existence of two different
> spellings of the name in the original paper was evidence that a
> typographical
> error had been committed, I proposed Ricardoestesia as the
> correct spelling
> of the genus. If enough workers used the h-less spelling, I
> figured, and if
> nobody noticed what I had done in the first printing, in time the h-less
> spelling would preponderate. Then, even if someone did turn up my
> original
> revision, a good case could be made to retain the h-less
> spelling, which is
> the way the authors originally wanted it. Preponderant usage
> carries great
> weight in zoological nomenclature.
>
> For the next ten years, I worked to ensure that the h-less
> spelling was used
> in any dinosaur document that I had input into that dealt with
> that genus.
> For example, the spelling Ricardoestesia is used throughout the
> Phil Currie
> Festschrift volume Mesozoic Vertebrate Life because as indexer I
> brought this
> issue to the editors' attention. It is most appropriate to use Phil's
> intended spelling, and not the invidious misspelling, in a book
> celebrating
> Phil's career in paleontology! Wherever else in the literature the h-less
> spelling appears is directly or indirectly because I have
> campaigned for it
> behind the scenes. I am very happy I was able to do this. Going
> by the rules
> is fine in most situations, but when the rules, through no fault or
> negligence of the original author, perpetuate an egregious name
> in favor of a
> desired name, it is an injustice that deserves correction. There is no
> linguistic reason to prefer richardo- over ricardo- or vice
> versa; both are
> equally valid Latinizations. Nobody's reputation is slighted if
> the h-less
> spelling is used. The reason for preferring Ricardoestesia over
> Richardoestesia is simply that the former is the spelling the
> authors wanted,
> and as far as I know they are blameless in this error.
>
> Unfortunately, not many people noticed the h-less spelling
> emendation in MM
> #2 second printing, so the h-ed spelling still predominates in
> the literature
> by a considerable margin. Recently a second species of the genus was
> described under the h-ed spelling: Richardoestesia isosceles
> Sankey, 2001.
> And now the issue has resurfaced again, because the indefatigable Ben
> Creisler, researching a new publication, pointed out that the
> h-ed spelling
> must be considered correct, fixed by my act as first revisor.
> (How odd that a
> number of my other nomenclatural acts in the first printing of MM #2 have
> mainly been ignored, e.g., correcting Avaceratops lammersorum, Sauropelta
> edwardsorum, and Tenontosaurus tillettorum exactly according to
> the rules,
> but this particular emendation must stand!) In truth, the correct
> spelling is
> the one that workers in time come to use, and if enough people
> use the h-less
> spelling, then it will become the accepted spelling for the genus. Recall
> what happened to Rioarribasaurus (which was not accepted, even
> though it was
> technically the correct name for the Ghost Ranch theropod, and a
> petition to
> the ICZN suppressed it); and a similar fate seems to be befalling
> Megapnosaurus, which I haven't yet seen used by a single theropod worker
> (although maybe it's too soon to say).
>
> At this point, I would strongly recommend that readers of this
> post become
> proactive and employ the name Ricardoestesia in favor of
> Richardoestesia in
> any published works that cite this genus. I will continue to do
> so myself, of
> course, and if it requires petitioning the ICZN to resolve the
> matter, I'll
> try that, too. BUT: If I hear from the original authors (at least
> two of whom
> receive these Dinosaur Genera List updates by email) that they no
> longer care
> which spelling becomes accepted, I will abandon this effort. I will also
> immediately write up a suitable Dinosaur Genera List update and
> will change
> the spelling of the name to Richardoestesia in the List.