Re: paleonet Dinosaur Genera List update #187

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

Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:

> 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.

While I understand that the original authors wished the name to be spelled
Ricardoestesia, it's very clear from what you say that there's no provision in
the 4th edition of the Zoological Code (1999) for changing Richardoestesia.

Article 32.5.1 requires that for an original spelling to be incorrect, 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...", in which case "it must be corrected.
Incorrect transliteration or latinization... are (sic) not to be considered
inadvertent errors."

You indicate that in the original article the name is indicated as honoring
Richard Estes, not Ricardo Estes.  Unless the authors made some specific
statement to the effect that they were latinizing Richard as Ricardo, there would
be no "clear evidence of an inadvertent error" in the publication itself.  The
only exception to this rule is in Article 32.5.1.1:  "The correction of a
spelling of a name in a publisher's or author's corrigendum issued simultaneously
with the original work or as a circulated slip to be inserted in the work (or if
in a journal, or work issued in parts, in one of the parts of the same volume) is
to be accepted as clear evidence of an inadvertent error."  As this apparently
was not done, the rule is quite clear that Richardoestesia has to be considered
the original, correct spelling.  The remainder of Article 32.5 lists a number of
other circumstances where the original name is to be corrected, but none of these
apply here; they include such things as removing diacritical marks and hyphens
and spelling out abbreviations and numerals.

If Richardoestesia cannot be considered an incorrect original name, the question
remains as to what a First Reviewer can do to change it.  The answer is, nothing,
even when it is done in accordance with the authors' wishes.  Two articles apply:

Article 32.3 Preservation of correct original spelling.  The correct original
spelling of a name is to be preserved unaltered except where it is mandatory to
change the suffix or the gender ending...."

and

Article 33.2.3  Any other emendation [other than the mandatory correction of an
incorrect original spelling] is an "unjustified emendation"; the name thus
emended [in this instance, Ricardoestesia] is available and has its own author
and date and is a junior objective synonym of the name in its original
spelling...."

In other words, the original name Richardoestesia has to stand, and any proposed
change to it (i.e., Ricardoestesia) by a First Reviewer simply becomes a junior
synonym.  I'm afraid you're stuck with Richardoestesia.

Bob Fleisher
Houston, TX