Re: paleonet Dinosaur Genera List update #187

[Dinogeorge@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 7/25/02 4:09:33 PM EST, forams@flash.net writes:

<< 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. >>

Actually, the name honors Richard Estes, not Ricardo Estes. Ricardo is the 
way the authors wanted to Latinize the name, and Richardo is the way it 
appeared in print. Both Latinizations are okay. I believe the Code provisions 
being cited here have to do with an obvious mis-Latinization. If the authors 
wanted to honor Richard Estes and the name appeared as Nicardoestesia, for 
example, this would constitute the kind of typographical error that the Code 
mandates be changed at once. The Ricardo/Richardo problem is different, and 
it requires a first revisor to choose the correct form. Richardo is a 
no-brainer, because it is the dominant spelling in the paper; one needs to 
know the authors' intention in order to make the correct choice of 
Ricardoestesia.