[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

RE: Ricardoestesia

Tracy Ford wrote:

> In my list on Ricardoestesia I'm putting in a note explaining that 
> this is the correct and intended spelling of the name. 

_Ricardoestesia_ was certainly the spelling intended by the authors (Currie,
Rigby and Sloan, 1990) - there's no argument on that point.  

However, even though _Ricardoestesia_ was the *intended* spelling, this does
not automatically qualify it as the *correct* spelling.  Under ICZN rules,
_Richardoestesia_ is the correct rendering of the genus name.  Ben Creisler
offered a nice piece on this:

http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/2001Feb/msg00768.html


Stuff happens.


Tim