Re: [dinosaur] RETRACTION: Oculudentavis, new smallest known Mesozoic bird in amber from Cretaceous of Myanmar

[Paul P <turtlecroc@yahoo.com>]

Yes, I realized as I sent my email last night that this is what you probably 
meant. They may be able to do exactly that online, but not in the printed 
journal, so a correction in the next issue seems like the way to go. 

I'm trying to imagine myself having inadvertently named a new ceratopsian 
"Fantasmoraptor," thinking that it was a dromaeosaur.... 

    Paul P.


On Friday, July 24, 2020, 11:38:45 AM UTC, Gregory Paul <gsp1954@aol.com> wrote:

To be clear, having been publishing in the literature for nearly four decades 
of course I did not mean that the paper itself should be altered, that never 
happens and obviously would be absurd for a long list of reasons, and obviously 
no one would suggest doing such a radical thing. The O. k. paper should be 
reinstated as originally published with a quick correction note attached in 
some manner regarding the errant parts.

GSPaul



-----Original Message-----

From: Paul P <turtlecroc@yahoo.com>
To: mickey_mortimer111@msn.com; Gregory Paul <gsp1954@aol.com>
Cc: dinosaur-l@usc.edu
Sent: Fri, Jul 24, 2020 2:41 am

Subject: Re: [dinosaur] RETRACTION: Oculudentavis, new smallest known Mesozoic 
bird in amber from Cretaceous of Myanmar



On Thursday, July 23, 2020, 05:15:17 PM UTC, Gregory Paul <gsp1954@aol.com> 
wrote:

> Me thinks this paper should be reinstated with a major correction to the 
> errant parts.


Hmm, I found some small errors in one of my 2018 papers. Can I retract it now 
and then have a different version of it re-appear with the errors corrected..? 
Ach, but how to expunge the hardcopies from the printed version of the journal 
in university libraries all over the world..?

Yes I am being facetious (but I didn't get the impression that GSP was).

Again, a paper that's published cannot be 'disappeared.' It exists from now on, 
in perpetuity. That's the whole point of the new electronic publishing rules 
too.

It is a good point that it's a binomial name, and there's nothing wrong with 
the specific name. It's just that generic name which is going to win awards for 
being one of the worst of all time.

  Paul P.