Re: Richardoestesia vs. Ricardoestesia

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/23/01 8:54:30 PM EST, bh480@scn.org writes:

<< Usage in technical literature has pretty well decided the 
 issue as I see it and, irksome as some may find it, the 
 original published spelling Richardoestesia is the valid 
 spelling for the name under the ICZN.  >>

When I revised the spelling to Ricardoestesia, the name had appeared 
elsewhere only in its original article, and the revision was perfectly 
valid--particularly since I know that's the spelling the authors originally 
desired (regardless of the fact that the H spelling might be etymologically 
acceptable). Now that ten years have passed, of course, this >miserable< 
error has perpetuated itself through a number of papers and become the 
predominant usage; even the Zoological Record has it wrong. That's not my 
fault, except in that I didn't sell enough copies of MM #3 to make most 
people aware of the mistake. Bah. I'll continue to use Ricardoestesia and 
thumb my nose at the wrong majority, as I do with Ceratopia and so forth.