Re: paleonet Dinosaur Genera List update #187

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

Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:

> 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.

This will teach me to read more carefully, always an important issue.  I misread
your comment in the message that started this discussion, where you said "The
spelling Richardoestesia was used
practically everywhere in the paper..." to mean that only Richardoestesia was
used.  This even though you state clearly later that Ricardoestesia was also used
in the original paper.  Your comments above are right on target; your action as
First Reviewer fixes the genus name.

I very much agree with Jere Lipps that Richardoestesia sufficiently honors
Richard Estes, and despite the authors' intentions, I don't see that anything is
to be gained on that issue by changing it.  And like Jere, I am very
uncomfortable with the idea of an end run around the rules by trying to get
specialists to ignore them.  In any case, I don't think it would work without a
long period of virtually unanimous use of the modified name.  My impression is
that most of the times the common usage provisions are applied refer to historic
cases where the original name was subsequently ignored, and current stability
mandated use of the newer modified name.  It would be years, I think, before the
Commission would accept Ricardoestesia even if it were widely cited.

Bob Fleisher
Houston, TX