RE: paleonet Dinosaur Genera List update #187

["Andrew Rindsberg" <arindsberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

What a knot of worms! Well, it all boils down to whether the authors'
intention is clearly present in the original article 'without recourse to
any external source of information'. Is it? If so, then the name is
Ricardoestesia (though this would have to be established in print, as Bob
Fleisher pointed out). If not, then, as you say, the principle of the first
reviser decides the issue: Richardoestesia.

The question of mislatinization is irrelevant, since the ICZN allows it
(while deploring it). The number of times each spelling was used in the
original paper is also irrelevant; the authors' intention is what matters.
Incidentally, the current consensus is that personal names should not be
latinized except to add a suffix, which would have yielded Richardestesia;
too bad that this spelling is not one of the options! If the authors feel
victimized by the printer, then all is not lost: Anyone may petition the
International Commission to have the name changed. They could even petition
the Commission to change the name to Richardestesia if they like, and
correct two problems at once. But there is much to be said for
nomenclatorial stability. Best done quickly or not at all.

For those who want to brush up on their Latin, W.H. Stearn's "Botanical
Latin" is an excellent survey, and there are also some websites on Botanical
Latin (the dialect of Latin whose vocabulary was developed for use by
biologists). But frankly, it would be a waste of time for every
paleontologist to have to learn the basics of Latin well enough to apply
them correctly. Better to recognize that only a few specialists have the
time to develop a thorough knowledge of the subject, and to have new names
reviewed by one of them before committing manuscripts to an editor.

Andrew K. Rindsberg

Geological Survey of Alabama
Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA

> -----Original Message-----
> From: paleonet-owner@nhm.ac.uk [mailto:paleonet-owner@nhm.ac.uk]On
> Behalf Of Dinogeorge@aol.com
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 6:09 PM
> To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
> Cc: Dinogeorge@aol.com
> Subject: Re: paleonet Dinosaur Genera List update #187
>
>
> 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.
>