Re: paleonet Dinosaur Genera List update #187

[Dinogeorge@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 7/25/02 9:36:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time, forams@flash.net 
writes:

<< 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.
 >>

The name appears spelled both ways in the original article, therefore there 
is indeed evidence of a typographical error within the paper and not from any 
external source. The problem is which is the error and which is the correct 
spelling. As first revisor I chose the predominant spelling Richardoestesia, 
but I was later informed that the intended spelling was Ricardoestesia (see 
Dinosaur Genera List corrections #187). The only way to change the spelling 
to the authors' intended spelling is to inform the dinosaur community of the 
intended spelling and request that the intended spelling be used from now on, 
regardless of the action of the first revisor. The intended spelling is in 
the literature in several publications, so it already carries some weight. 
The object is to continue using the intended spelling until it predominates 
in the literature and thereby becomes the accepted spelling.