Re: paleonet Dinosaur Genera List update #187

["Robert L. Fleisher" <forams@xxxxxxxxx>]

Andrew Rindsberg wrote:

> 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.

The 1999 Code has the same provision as the 1985 edition, and I think your
interpretation is correct, provided that there is an explicit statement in the
original paper to the effect that the name is intended to honor Ricardo Estes.
That, according to Article 32.5.1 (and illustrated by the subsequent example in
the text), would constitute "clear evidence of an inadvertent error...."  As I
understand it, a taxonomic note, which could be submitted anybody, correcting
"an incorrect original spelling...is a 'justified emendation', and the name thus
corrected retains the authorship and date of the original spelling."  This
implies to me that some publication making the correction is necessary, rather
than simply using the correct spelling.  But if there is no statement in the
paper mentioning Ricardo Estes, the original spelling has to stand; subsequent
comments by the authors have no weight.

Bob Fleisher
Houston, TX