Re: Richardoestesia vs. Ricardoestesia (again)

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/19/02 3:39:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, bh480@scn.org 
writes:

<< This issue was discussed back in Feb. 2001, and 
 my position remains that the spelling Richardoestesia is 
 the one to use.  >>

Ya know, I'm still baffled that some people want to retain the spelling 
Richardoestesia in favor of Ricardoestesia, despite the fact that this is 
>not< the authors' originally intended spelling and that one may, within the 
context of ICZN rules, formally change it to the spelling that the authors 
did originally intend. What's in it for anyone to prefer Richardoestesia over 
Ricardoestesia? The former name was inserted via a global replace (or some 
such mechanical word processing) by an overzealous typesetter or editor at 
Cambridge University Press, not by the authors. I realize that, had this 
replacement been perfect, we would be stuck under ICZN rules with 
Richardoestesia forever; but it was not perfect, and the spelling 
Ricardoestesia occurs in the original paper as evidence that puts the 
spelling Richardoestesia in doubt. This gives us the necessary loophole 
through which we can push the authors' original intent. This issue currently 
requires a proactive response within the dinosaur community, because the 
wrong spelling continues to appear in the literature and will thus gain 
weight year by year. For example, when I indexed the book Mesozoic Vertebrate 
Life for Indiana University Press, I brought the issue to the attention of 
the editors and thus had the correct spelling inserted everywhere in the text 
(as far as I have looked, anyway).

With regard to me as "first revisor" when I chose Richardoestesia over 
Ricardoestesia in MM #2 first printing, that was simply an acceptance of the 
predominance of the wrong spelling in the paper. This is trivial, not a 
revision of the name. The first >revision< of the name was published by me in 
MM #2 second printing, and that is what makes me the first revisor. When I 
changed/revised the spelling to Ricardoestesia, I actually hoped that the 
entry in MM #2 first printing would not be noticed and that I wouldn't be 
compelled to fight myself, but alas and sigh, this has proved not to be the 
case.

With regard to the Latin formations "Richardus" versus "Ricardus," these 
don't matter in light of what the authors intended. I agree that either 
construction is acceptable, but note that Ameghino preferred "Ricardo-" when 
he coined those funny names, and that was the style the authors wished to 
emulate. Or so Robert Sloan told me way back in 1991 when he saw the entry 
for "Richardoestesia" in MM #2 first printing and started me on this little 
crusade.