Re: Richardoestesia vs. Ricardoestesia (again)

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/21/02 1:31:21 AM EST, bh480@scn.org writes:

<< From: Ben Creisler bh480@scn.org
 I guess George and I are reading the ICZN differently. The 
 First Reviser doesn't have to state explicitly "I am 
 acting as First Reviser" or "This is a revision to so-and-
 so's zoological name." >>

Ben is right, but the question is how to bend and stretch the rules in order 
to install the spelling that the original describers desired as the correct 
spelling of the name. As I said before, in 1992 I had hoped my original 
notation, compiled before I knew what spelling the authors had originally 
intended, would be overlooked and the subsequent revision would be accepted. 
Apparently Ben has some kind of fixation on >not< doing this, which is his 
privilege. As for me, whenever I encounter the spelling Richardoestesia in 
works that I edit or have other input to, I will do what I can to change it 
to Ricardoestesia, and I would urge everyone who writes or edits papers on 
dinosaurs to also do this. If, in the end, it requires a petition to the ICZN 
to formally suppress the unintended spelling that some joker at Cambridge 
inserted into the text after the authors had proofed it, I'll try that; but 
meanwhile, everyone in the dinosaur community can, by simply using 
Ricardoestesia instead of Richardoestesia from now on, eventually bring about 
this correction without recourse to petitions. If Ricardoestesia becomes the 
preponderant spelling, this will carry greater weight than would a strict 
application of the first revisor principle.