Re: paleonet Dinosaur Genera List update #187

[Dinogeorge@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 7/26/02 1:48:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
jlipps@uclink4.berkeley.edu writes:

<< I think the commission would tell dino-freaks to stick to Richardoestesia, 
 since that is the closest to the original intent and was proposed 
 correctly.  Of course, Richard may not like the O on the end of his first 
 name; neither would I. >>

The point was that Richardoestesia is >not< the original intent; 
Ricardoestesia was. I have yet to hear from any of the authors of the article 
that they no longer care which way it's spelled. I'm all for following the 
rules, but would want the rules bent to accommodate the namers of a taxon if 
a misspelling becomes entrenched through no fault of the namers.