paleonet Benson Email?

["Xavier Panades I Blas" <cogombra@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi everybody,

Please,  I would appreciate if anybody could provide me with the address of 
Dr or Prof. Benson that wrote the paper below.


Benson, R. D. 2000. Picid Ichnotaxon Eocavum picifactum Buchholz 1986 is
Pliocene, not Eocene [Abstract]. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 38(Suppl.):1.



Respectfully,

Xavier Panades I Blas
55, Marksbury Road
Bedminster
Bristol BS3 5JY
England (EC)

http://www.acs.bolton.ac.uk/~xp1pls/
















From: "Xavier Panades I Blas" <cogombra@hotmail.com>
Reply-To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
Subject: Re: paleonet Welcome to The Palaeo-oological Discussion Group
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 08:55:36 +0000

Hi Gary,

Our group was Founded in Oct 21, 2005, and the word "Palaeooological" has 
been used constantly in there!



Respectfully,

Xavier Panades I Blas
55, Marksbury Road
Bedminster
Bristol BS3 5JY
England (EC)

http://www.acs.bolton.ac.uk/~xp1pls/
















From: "Gary Rosenberg" <rosenberg@acnatsci.org>
Reply-To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
To: <paleonet@nhm.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: paleonet Welcome to The Palaeo-oological Discussion Group
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:16:40 -0400

The Oxford English Dictionary works on an evidence-based approach. If a 
particular spelling is prevalent among the genuine uses of a word, the OED 
would list that as the primary spelling, taking into account regional 
variations such as American versus British spellings. If there is 
conflicting usage, an editor presumably will chose one as most consistent 
with normal patterns in English. All of the discussion on this listserv 
could be fodder for the determination, since the editors routinely use 
Internet searches and databases to find uses of word. So there is no need to 
submit the variant spellings individually; they will be considered.

As yet there appear to be only 2 independent uses of paleoology and its 
cognates: the journal article from 2004, and Xavier's announcement of the 
discussion group, which started this thread. All the uses within the thread 
are meta-usages, which might influence editors if the evidence of spelling 
is contradictory, but what will count more is uptake in the professional 
literature. The OED generally wants at least 6 independent uses of a word 
with some chronological separation for it to qualify for listing. So Jere, 
start publishing paleooological papers, if that is the spelling you want to 
prevail. You'll have to get the spellings past the journal editors too. I've 
tried to sneak "shellless" into print for three l's in a row, but no editor 
has yet let it stand; it always becomes "shell-less".

It's interesting to contemplate that as scientists describe the world 
biologically, the etymologists are circumscribing the geographical and 
chronological distributions of our words. They even have analogs to Lazarus 
taxa, searching for interdatings as well as first and last occurrences.

Gary