From: Dinogeorge@aol.com
Reply-To: Dinogeorge@aol.com
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: Richardoestesia vs. Ricardoestesia
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 23:05:04 EST
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.